Pedophilia may be as innate as homosexuality. Lets say its is unchangeable. I do not want to restrict the rights of people who are sexually attracted to children, I want to restrict the rights (eg, put in prison) people who *act* on that attraction and that is because of the harm that action causes.
Harm is key to me. I do not see the harm in consenting sex between homosexuals so I believe it should be protected. I do see harm done to children by people who have sex with them.
I'm not in the mainstream here because I do not object to any form of pedophilia that does not in any way involve ACTUAL CHILDREN. So I think computer generated child porn should be legal (even if I personally find it offensive), but that is not the current lawl.
Harm has gradations. I do not see the significant harm from trans people using the restroom of their choice. As others have said, some who wants to peep or molest can dress up as the other gender right now. The use of the incorrect restroom is a very minor crime relative to the peeping or molesting.
What is a "delusion"? I don't know if that is even an accepted term is psychology. What matters to me is again the harm caused by a belief. Once again my standards for harm are moderately high because we accept a variety of people who believe that they receive instructions from god. Since they don't all believe in the same god, presumably many are "delusional". As long as those instructions do not cause them to do harm to others, I have no problem with them believing that they are acting on instructions from god.
I do agree with you that I've never liked the "can't help it defense" because it implies that it is something someone might want to help. I have happily married gay friends. I do not care whether or not being gay was a choice - I'm quite sure that if they *did* have the choice, they would choose to continue to be gay.
So I don't care if people can choose to be gay, I still want them to be able to marry because I does no significant harm. If trans people want to use the restroom that matches their appearance, that is fine because it does no harm (since no one will know anyway). If people want to engage in safe / sane / consensual BDSM, that is fine because it does no harm to others. I will differ from others in that if someone wants child porn that in on way involves actual children, that is fine with me too (if it were to become legal).
To answer the obvious question, would I want a pedophile (someone attracted to children but not convicted of acting on that conviction) watching children unsupervised. I would want data. I suspect that statistically pedophiles are MUCH more likely than the average populace to molest children, so that risk of harm is high enough to limit their access.
If there is data to show that trans people are harming others in restrooms at a statistically significant rate (relative to the general population) then I would be willing to limit their access.
For all the worry, how many cases of trans people molesting women in restrooms have there been???
The cake issue is very interesting and very complex. The limits on what services companies need to provide to what people is worth an entire different discussion. If someone's religion requires that they go barefoot, can a restaurant with a no shoes, no shirt, no service rule, refuse them service? If they can, can a restaurant have a no-turbans rule?
I'm glad you went there. Now you've gone for the gold.
I think some would claim that having a [sexual predilection for children] is no more changeable than sexual orientation, which is no more changeable than race. In that case discrimination based on [a sexual predilection for children] would be equivalent to discrimination based on race.
By your logic, pedophilia is in. They can't control it, they shouldn't be judged for it. They have needs too, so they should be permitted. Nevermind it is their behavior that we are policing, not their beliefs, it's wrong to discriminate based on sexual predilection.
Take some time, don't just react to this. Consider it for a while. It is not a good road to walk down.
It's really not as complicated as you make it in the particular sense you are describing. A person has a diagnosed delusion, and demands that everyone agree that their delusion is real. Then they scream that anyone who is uncomfortable with this statement, or worse, uncomfortable being near (or having their kids near) someone with such delusions is a bigot and (((evil))) (((oppressor))) out to (((discriminate))) against them, and that these are the same people who would and have (((discriminated))) against blacks in the past.
This is poisoning the well. They are not a race. They have nothing in common with race. Moreover, taking this approach is a dangerous thing to discuss, because you are basically admitting that the claims that black and brown people are of inferior intellect due to genetics are probably true. They can't help it. This is observable, and almost anyone pro-trans would take issue with this research.
Most of society disagrees with you. You also haven't at all addressed in this any of the very legitimate, rational concerns that I've argued for. You've merely handwaved and said "it doesn't bother me because I don't have kids, so I'm okay with making everyone else have to deal with it". That's neither empathetic, nor intellectual.
I have some very deviant predilections. I don't think society should be forced to accept them, say they're great, and even let me do them in public. I absolutely don't think that my deviant predilections should be taught to children as good and wholesome in school. They should be kept between me and the consenting adults I enjoy them with, in the privacy of our own property.
Ummm... not escalating... oh yeah... forcing religious people to make their cakes with messages those people don't like and don't want to write? Shopping for the one or two people in town who were uncomfortable and wanted to not be involved, when several other places had agreed to do it? That's not escalation at all. We will see them sue to demand that a Catholic priest be forced to marry them next. It's coming, just give it a bit. You've declared them a protected class, rather than declaring that marriage should be handled differently than it historically has. Demanding Christians who don't approve of them, but keep that disapproval to themselves be taken off of television or otherwise lose their jobs.
By this logic, I must attend their wedding and give them their blessing if they invite me, or else I'm discriminating and should lose my job and be labeled with the scarlet letter B for Bigot. Heck, I don't even have to have an invitation.
ETA: We should close down churches
who don't approve of homosexuality. Nope. They're not escalating at all.[/QUOTE]