Edgeplay_cgo
Well-known member
And some people do. Whose preferences should govern?
Transgender Rights
- Thread starter almostinsane
- Start date
-
- Tags
- debate trans transgender
And some people do. Whose preferences should govern?
I'm very loose with the term friend.
So 8chan right? Also why edit in the SB and SV as obscure german references?
I don't know what the fuck they are, I was trying to guess. Wow what the fuck, what's with all this suspicion?
Well I dont know. You picked an alpha legion avatar which is a group known for infilitrating. You have hydra dominatus after the whole heil hydra campaign. You say you come from 8chan and are the only person to do so, you got invited by a friend you dont know, you dont know what SB or SV means, you are way out on your own here, you are following around Punch Card Girl like a puppy and have her stated beliefs and an identical identity with some added 14 words ethnostate shit attached, and you joined after someone else said they'd be going around infiltrating """nazi sites""". Call me crazy but thats a lot of fuckin coincidences, don't you agree?
Last edited:
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I think that traditional families are extremely good and important. I’m in one, I’m a home schooling house wife. We can value such families, we can uphold their virtues, while at the same time tolerating people who aren’t going to fit into that box.
You know, you could at least try harder, it's not fun when it's this blatant.
That's you. Not all people share your sentiments. Some people feel more insecure and vulnerable, which means they will pay more attention to who is present in the bathroom with them, the place when they bare themselves (even behind the closed doors of a stall). And frankly, I can't judge or condemn them for it
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Thank you for those words of wisdom. Indeed, it's true that traditional societies had more tolerance for deviance from the norm than clinicalised modern societies, because that tolerance, those compromises to make society function and be just, was an integral part of the organic whole of society. Even those who did not fit into the mainstream, expected behaviours and roles, still had a place.
In modern scientific society, on the other hand, normalisation is enforced on everyone. We are all allowed to be different... In the exact same way. Deviance is classed as mental illness and treated with drugs, sometimes ruthlessly, and sometimes leading to forced sterilisation or murder. The carceral state is also an extension of this, because justice is no longer about making amends to the wrong, but the State itself enforcing an arbitrarily decided punishment to meet specific idealised social objectives.
First one
Key takeaway:
And when you check that table, it's basically a range of values between 40 and 50%, with even the "less likely" group having 30% or so as the norm.
Second one
Now, I can't seem to find a baseline figure for the non-transitioned Swedish suicide rate, the only one I could find was a survey that said about 32% had attempted suicide within the last year, but that doesn't distinguish between pre and post op trans people.
Given that second was a long term study while your study is not, it seems to suggest that in the short term, transitioning might help, but after a while underlying issues come back and the sucide rate rises again.
Wow homie I don't know what half this shit is. Like am I not allowed to like 40k? Am I not allowed to like snakes? I was born in the year of the snake. You're being paranoid. What 14 words?
Can you explain this "Heil Hydra" thing to me? I don't know what SB or SV means, I'm sorry. How am I following Punch Card Girl around? I'm in like two or three of these threads, she's in like dozens, how do I avoid that if she's a really prolific poster?
ReeeFallin
The Yankee Candle
I don't see how she came from 8chan when 8chan hasn't been working.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
That is an interesting perspective. I think that traditionally, people may have related to each other not by sets of supposed universal principles, but as individuals. So the person who doesn’t fit in is still the sum total of their characteristics and not a demographic check sheet.
Oh, so is Belinda banned now? I hope then, that she really was a troll and not just someone with quirky opinions.
Edit: oh, looks like it’s temporary.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
As we would say, in the reality of the Pit, "truth" is determined by the identity of the speaker, and not by the content of their speech. What, then, really is transsexuality? Why does the West condemn it? Why do other faiths and customs not condemn it? Is one position traditionally correct? What are the traditional critiques of these positions?
Let us imagine for a moment first of all that we may draw a relatively clear line between those with some ineluctable compulsion to live within another sex, and those whose identity is a political act to break down the essential reality of gender--shock troops of the Pit who seek to defame the innate grace and dignity of the feminine, and muddle and mix the waters until no differences exist between the sexes at all.
Apologies. I had to pause right here because really I don't want to be talking about this bloody subject without an Old Fashioned in one hand and a bottle of San Pellegrino in the other. It's the subject of the hour, irritating because it's popular beyond all sense, but at the same time that makes it necessary to address, because it brings to mind a very serious failing of modern conservatism.
So, this post is mostly about the first type, that is, true transsexuals, not about the second type, transgenderists for my purposes. Technically, western Theology condemns both. Why? One can look at the biological component, and assign this ineluctable compulsion to the category of body dysmorphia, as several have done in this thread. However, the biological component to me seems just a papering over of western theology which really grounds the objection to transsexuality, and one that's not really conservative either since traditional societies have tolerated transsexuality for thousands of years.
So what is the theological issue? The great concern that western theologians have, beyond the related but different topic of post-Eclipse transgender ideology's seemingly inherent misogyny and homophobia and the intentional breaking down of essentialism, is its denial of natural revelation. If we are willing to say that a given person's being in a body of a particular sex is accidental--that is to say, that transsexuality is a failure of outer, physical reality to reflect inward, spiritual truth which we can "correct"--what then is to stop us from saying the same thing about the Earth having one sun, or water flowing downhill, or flowers needing bees to pollinate? Is not physical reality a reflection of spiritual reality?
The entire symbolic order by which we come to the understanding of inner truth from the signs of outer nature is called into question and we thus recapitulate Nietzsche's "unchaining" of the earth from the sun. This is the very essence of how western traditions see religion and see the Truth, and so proclaiming that it is possible for physical reality to be different from spiritual reality is a direct assault on the western spiritual tradition. In that sense, transgender ideology as it is being presented today appears to depend on the assumption of a lifeless, chaotic, uncreated universe and thus to be incompatible, at its most basic level, with Theism itself--to deny that the soul and the body shall always be congruent would be tantamount to denying Creation.
This is more or less the Catholic position on transsexuality, summarised as best as possible for our purposes. By this standard, to say that "Trans women are women", full stop, seems tantamount to saying that "God makes mistakes."
But what about the child with Down Syndrome? What about the child with leukemia? Does God make mistakes in those cases? How can we reconcile that with the infinite love of the Creator, you may ask? As my friend @Mia Koro put it, there is a kind of "spiritual economy" in the western traditions. And the western traditions have since pre-Christian, Hellenic times, been subject to an influence of rationality which has corrupted their spiritual maturity relative to the East, as well. We see in many Traditional societies cultures that recognise third or fourth genders and they are all Traditional and involve no appropriation of identities, or assault on safe spaces, or immediate chemical disfigurement (though they may, in fact, demand painful rituals of initiation when they are judged ready to take that step in their journey, such as the castration of the Hijra).
Is that a legitimate spiritual path? The Traditionalist would answer "of course, because it is traditional". So let's try to understand how the Western and Eastern traditions reconcile to each other in this case. We'll look at the example of the Thai "Kathoey", or "Women of the Second Type." That perhaps provides the most feminine-centric as opposed to third gender identity of any extant tradition--but it also acknowledges something different, a characteristic of limitation. "of the second type". Why is there this distinction? It's a spiritual one; they don’t think it’s an accident at all. They call it an act of dharma. That's how the West reconciles with the East. It would never be an accident. There are no accidents. It would be a path laid out for someone very specifically based on Werde, as we Filyani call it, or "Dharma". In the western spiritual economy of the post-Hellenic age, the journey to enlightenment of the soul is condensed into a single lifespan. In the east it is not -- in the east it is governed by dharma, as it was, in the case of Werde, in the ancientmost times of western civilisation. So a Kathoey is fated to be a Kathoey by an act of dharma. She is condemned to an imperfect life in this incarnation according to the dictates of the Wheel. But there is nothing about her existence which denies God or denies Creation, because the discordance between her soul and her body is an intentional working of dharma to account for the past course of her soul.
So what is the purpose of the transsexual woman in this life, which Werde has left her to? Is it to deny herself and live as a man for hope of the next incarnation, or to follow a doubtful path of pain and initiation into womanhood which will always be imperfect and incomplete? To my religion, and to the Thais, the answer is the later--her course is laid out according to Mercy, to walk down a road of pain, but also of initiation into womanhood. One could formulate the argument that self-abnegation is the Greater Mercy, but the traditional precedent, to me, indicates that this is not the case.
This to me then says that we should help transsexuals--true transsexuals--to transition and live as women in society. But these women should also have the humility to acknowledge they are imperfect and will never grasp perfection in this life. And many of these transgenderist odd sorts have no shame at all and, because they are not really women, turn violently upon any idea of having the humility to embrace imperfection. They loathe those true transsexuals who, on transitioning, retreat to live their lives as normal women, to support their sisters, and to follow the course laid out for them. They hate the idea of submission to God.
But to transition is not an act of rebellion to Creation. To be humble is a virtue. To have a healthy shame about one's imperfections is an act of virtue which will help remove them. In short, in this as in many other aspects of society, the claim of "I am" instead of "I am becoming" leads to needless conflict. Because of this distinction, the true transsexual has a hard road laid out before her. It is acceptable to expect her to demonstrate a measure of suffering, of blood sacrifice, to be admitted to the community of womanhood, and even then to still deny them certain places, such as, in our case, the sacred priestesshood of the Madrians. But she is a woman, and she is a sister. It cannot be an accident, that is clear and obvious, it must be a working of Werde since that is the only way to lay what would otherwise be a terrifically cruel fate on someone within the context of divine love.
But this only applies anyhow to a subset of those calling themselves transgender in the Pit. To those who are sincerely women but are caught up in the moment of the politics around them--probably a small subset, because transgenderism has attracted a great deal of faddishness around it, and even genuine confusion. It is very easy, in the present climate, for any young person especially who feels ill at ease with gendered expectations placed on them or doesn't fit in well with same-sex peer groups to be led to believe that identifying as transgender is a solution.
In short, one might imagine we actually see very few true transsexuals. They transition and promptly hide and try to live their lives. Exhibitionists... Exhibit. As they are wont to do. For transgenderism itself? There are certainly concerns. For example, very young girls are culturally pressured to dress and make themselves up provocatively, and a lack of interest in doing so (let alone active resistance) was seized on as evidence that they were "really" trans--as though the only options for existing are to be a sexual object for men or to be a man.
But what if we may indulge in a heresy about that matter of transmen? For, indeed, unless you accept that transsexuality is spiritual, how are transmen supposed to exist biologically? It doesn’t make any sense! Transwomen are obvious—biological males have an X chromosome, so if expression of something on the Y chromosome fails, logic says that the X chromosome may instead express as life always seeks to survive. We know many examples of disorders which are survivable for humans because one sex chromosome "covers down" for the other one, to use the modern parlance--and so biologically you have a transwoman. It is tidy and it makes sense.
...But how do you get a transman from two X chromosomes?
--To play devil's advocate, the radfem answer might be that you don't; you get a transman from compulsive patriarchy and internalized misogyny.
But to speak as a Feminine Essentialist, you might say a variation of that truth: Men and women, males and females are not the same. It’s quite possible one sort of transperson could be legitimate and the other not. All is not equal in the world.
Is this to be taken seriously as a dismissal of the existence of transmen? Absolutely not. It is to be taken as an argument for a metaphysical view of transsexuality. Biology itself has a sufficient number of inherent contradictions in form and function to be a ready guide (because biology is actually a profoundly messy and complicated science, from the forest of larch trees which are one being to the whiptail lizard, our concepts of right and wrong are constantly challenged if we base them off of a hyper-detailed study of biology -- and yet at the macro-scale, we have an ordered and consistent cosmos. The explanation for this is well-contained in Ms. Trent's The Feminine Universe).
We use biology because, at a superficial level as a pop science in the modern world, it fits our preconceived notions of rationalism. We then slot a clinicalised view of the subject into the argument we are making, which fits our ideological biases. One day, brain differences, finger length and so on prove that transsexuals are a biological intergrade deserving of our full compassion; the next day the studies prove they are all deranged and need to be locked in mental hospitals. There is no actual contradiction, there is just the fact that depending on what your first principles are, you can obtain information to support the result that you want to promote. Science, like the universe itself, becomes more certain as it deals with larger topics. Staring into the most remote replaces we begin to see eternity looking back at us.
Metaphysics are a surer footing for social policy. I can't explain the spiritual journey of transmen but I can assume that Werde has dictated a journey for them. This concept, then, covers the actual fate of our progression. Even if one might argue that to a Filyani the upward tendency should be through woman (so the soul of a transman is progressing downwards), it may be that Werde has dictated a lesson to be learned and so it is happening. I cannot say; so I must allow it, for the first principle is Mercy. But as in any initiatory process, as when the Rebbe turns aside the convert three times in Judaism, it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to place roadblocks in that journey. They filter the true seekers from the curious and confused, and they ultimately place the penitent on the same level with the blessed. It is the Becoming which matters.
(This post kindly composed with the intellectual input of Mia Koro).
Let us imagine for a moment first of all that we may draw a relatively clear line between those with some ineluctable compulsion to live within another sex, and those whose identity is a political act to break down the essential reality of gender--shock troops of the Pit who seek to defame the innate grace and dignity of the feminine, and muddle and mix the waters until no differences exist between the sexes at all.
Apologies. I had to pause right here because really I don't want to be talking about this bloody subject without an Old Fashioned in one hand and a bottle of San Pellegrino in the other. It's the subject of the hour, irritating because it's popular beyond all sense, but at the same time that makes it necessary to address, because it brings to mind a very serious failing of modern conservatism.
So, this post is mostly about the first type, that is, true transsexuals, not about the second type, transgenderists for my purposes. Technically, western Theology condemns both. Why? One can look at the biological component, and assign this ineluctable compulsion to the category of body dysmorphia, as several have done in this thread. However, the biological component to me seems just a papering over of western theology which really grounds the objection to transsexuality, and one that's not really conservative either since traditional societies have tolerated transsexuality for thousands of years.
So what is the theological issue? The great concern that western theologians have, beyond the related but different topic of post-Eclipse transgender ideology's seemingly inherent misogyny and homophobia and the intentional breaking down of essentialism, is its denial of natural revelation. If we are willing to say that a given person's being in a body of a particular sex is accidental--that is to say, that transsexuality is a failure of outer, physical reality to reflect inward, spiritual truth which we can "correct"--what then is to stop us from saying the same thing about the Earth having one sun, or water flowing downhill, or flowers needing bees to pollinate? Is not physical reality a reflection of spiritual reality?
The entire symbolic order by which we come to the understanding of inner truth from the signs of outer nature is called into question and we thus recapitulate Nietzsche's "unchaining" of the earth from the sun. This is the very essence of how western traditions see religion and see the Truth, and so proclaiming that it is possible for physical reality to be different from spiritual reality is a direct assault on the western spiritual tradition. In that sense, transgender ideology as it is being presented today appears to depend on the assumption of a lifeless, chaotic, uncreated universe and thus to be incompatible, at its most basic level, with Theism itself--to deny that the soul and the body shall always be congruent would be tantamount to denying Creation.
This is more or less the Catholic position on transsexuality, summarised as best as possible for our purposes. By this standard, to say that "Trans women are women", full stop, seems tantamount to saying that "God makes mistakes."
But what about the child with Down Syndrome? What about the child with leukemia? Does God make mistakes in those cases? How can we reconcile that with the infinite love of the Creator, you may ask? As my friend @Mia Koro put it, there is a kind of "spiritual economy" in the western traditions. And the western traditions have since pre-Christian, Hellenic times, been subject to an influence of rationality which has corrupted their spiritual maturity relative to the East, as well. We see in many Traditional societies cultures that recognise third or fourth genders and they are all Traditional and involve no appropriation of identities, or assault on safe spaces, or immediate chemical disfigurement (though they may, in fact, demand painful rituals of initiation when they are judged ready to take that step in their journey, such as the castration of the Hijra).
Is that a legitimate spiritual path? The Traditionalist would answer "of course, because it is traditional". So let's try to understand how the Western and Eastern traditions reconcile to each other in this case. We'll look at the example of the Thai "Kathoey", or "Women of the Second Type." That perhaps provides the most feminine-centric as opposed to third gender identity of any extant tradition--but it also acknowledges something different, a characteristic of limitation. "of the second type". Why is there this distinction? It's a spiritual one; they don’t think it’s an accident at all. They call it an act of dharma. That's how the West reconciles with the East. It would never be an accident. There are no accidents. It would be a path laid out for someone very specifically based on Werde, as we Filyani call it, or "Dharma". In the western spiritual economy of the post-Hellenic age, the journey to enlightenment of the soul is condensed into a single lifespan. In the east it is not -- in the east it is governed by dharma, as it was, in the case of Werde, in the ancientmost times of western civilisation. So a Kathoey is fated to be a Kathoey by an act of dharma. She is condemned to an imperfect life in this incarnation according to the dictates of the Wheel. But there is nothing about her existence which denies God or denies Creation, because the discordance between her soul and her body is an intentional working of dharma to account for the past course of her soul.
So what is the purpose of the transsexual woman in this life, which Werde has left her to? Is it to deny herself and live as a man for hope of the next incarnation, or to follow a doubtful path of pain and initiation into womanhood which will always be imperfect and incomplete? To my religion, and to the Thais, the answer is the later--her course is laid out according to Mercy, to walk down a road of pain, but also of initiation into womanhood. One could formulate the argument that self-abnegation is the Greater Mercy, but the traditional precedent, to me, indicates that this is not the case.
This to me then says that we should help transsexuals--true transsexuals--to transition and live as women in society. But these women should also have the humility to acknowledge they are imperfect and will never grasp perfection in this life. And many of these transgenderist odd sorts have no shame at all and, because they are not really women, turn violently upon any idea of having the humility to embrace imperfection. They loathe those true transsexuals who, on transitioning, retreat to live their lives as normal women, to support their sisters, and to follow the course laid out for them. They hate the idea of submission to God.
But to transition is not an act of rebellion to Creation. To be humble is a virtue. To have a healthy shame about one's imperfections is an act of virtue which will help remove them. In short, in this as in many other aspects of society, the claim of "I am" instead of "I am becoming" leads to needless conflict. Because of this distinction, the true transsexual has a hard road laid out before her. It is acceptable to expect her to demonstrate a measure of suffering, of blood sacrifice, to be admitted to the community of womanhood, and even then to still deny them certain places, such as, in our case, the sacred priestesshood of the Madrians. But she is a woman, and she is a sister. It cannot be an accident, that is clear and obvious, it must be a working of Werde since that is the only way to lay what would otherwise be a terrifically cruel fate on someone within the context of divine love.
But this only applies anyhow to a subset of those calling themselves transgender in the Pit. To those who are sincerely women but are caught up in the moment of the politics around them--probably a small subset, because transgenderism has attracted a great deal of faddishness around it, and even genuine confusion. It is very easy, in the present climate, for any young person especially who feels ill at ease with gendered expectations placed on them or doesn't fit in well with same-sex peer groups to be led to believe that identifying as transgender is a solution.
In short, one might imagine we actually see very few true transsexuals. They transition and promptly hide and try to live their lives. Exhibitionists... Exhibit. As they are wont to do. For transgenderism itself? There are certainly concerns. For example, very young girls are culturally pressured to dress and make themselves up provocatively, and a lack of interest in doing so (let alone active resistance) was seized on as evidence that they were "really" trans--as though the only options for existing are to be a sexual object for men or to be a man.
But what if we may indulge in a heresy about that matter of transmen? For, indeed, unless you accept that transsexuality is spiritual, how are transmen supposed to exist biologically? It doesn’t make any sense! Transwomen are obvious—biological males have an X chromosome, so if expression of something on the Y chromosome fails, logic says that the X chromosome may instead express as life always seeks to survive. We know many examples of disorders which are survivable for humans because one sex chromosome "covers down" for the other one, to use the modern parlance--and so biologically you have a transwoman. It is tidy and it makes sense.
...But how do you get a transman from two X chromosomes?
--To play devil's advocate, the radfem answer might be that you don't; you get a transman from compulsive patriarchy and internalized misogyny.
But to speak as a Feminine Essentialist, you might say a variation of that truth: Men and women, males and females are not the same. It’s quite possible one sort of transperson could be legitimate and the other not. All is not equal in the world.
Is this to be taken seriously as a dismissal of the existence of transmen? Absolutely not. It is to be taken as an argument for a metaphysical view of transsexuality. Biology itself has a sufficient number of inherent contradictions in form and function to be a ready guide (because biology is actually a profoundly messy and complicated science, from the forest of larch trees which are one being to the whiptail lizard, our concepts of right and wrong are constantly challenged if we base them off of a hyper-detailed study of biology -- and yet at the macro-scale, we have an ordered and consistent cosmos. The explanation for this is well-contained in Ms. Trent's The Feminine Universe).
We use biology because, at a superficial level as a pop science in the modern world, it fits our preconceived notions of rationalism. We then slot a clinicalised view of the subject into the argument we are making, which fits our ideological biases. One day, brain differences, finger length and so on prove that transsexuals are a biological intergrade deserving of our full compassion; the next day the studies prove they are all deranged and need to be locked in mental hospitals. There is no actual contradiction, there is just the fact that depending on what your first principles are, you can obtain information to support the result that you want to promote. Science, like the universe itself, becomes more certain as it deals with larger topics. Staring into the most remote replaces we begin to see eternity looking back at us.
Metaphysics are a surer footing for social policy. I can't explain the spiritual journey of transmen but I can assume that Werde has dictated a journey for them. This concept, then, covers the actual fate of our progression. Even if one might argue that to a Filyani the upward tendency should be through woman (so the soul of a transman is progressing downwards), it may be that Werde has dictated a lesson to be learned and so it is happening. I cannot say; so I must allow it, for the first principle is Mercy. But as in any initiatory process, as when the Rebbe turns aside the convert three times in Judaism, it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to place roadblocks in that journey. They filter the true seekers from the curious and confused, and they ultimately place the penitent on the same level with the blessed. It is the Becoming which matters.
(This post kindly composed with the intellectual input of Mia Koro).
Last edited by a moderator:
Nitramy
The Umbrella that Smites Evil
Speaking on a more theosophical level, if we assume that reincarnation is true, the best way to deal with gender dysphoria is "I have these bits that don't fit me, oh well, might as well use them so I don't get stuck in the wrong body on my next ride on this roller coaster".
I mean, where I am (the Philippines) there are a lot of heterosexual lesbian/gay couples here that do have children and raise their kids well. I'm not saying this is what all LGBTQ's should do, but I like the "biological duty before personal whim" idea.
(Like, isn't that the reason why trans activists are seen as horribly obnoxious, overbearing, moralistic and Pharisaical? Even simply saying something as "I like my heterosexuality" will bring upon you a crowd of nasty Tumblrites going "so you want to throw gays off buildings you fucking bigot" at you.)
I mean, where I am (the Philippines) there are a lot of heterosexual lesbian/gay couples here that do have children and raise their kids well. I'm not saying this is what all LGBTQ's should do, but I like the "biological duty before personal whim" idea.
(Like, isn't that the reason why trans activists are seen as horribly obnoxious, overbearing, moralistic and Pharisaical? Even simply saying something as "I like my heterosexuality" will bring upon you a crowd of nasty Tumblrites going "so you want to throw gays off buildings you fucking bigot" at you.)
ReeeFallin
The Yankee Candle
I uh, I don't see how there's a duty, biological or otherwise, to raise children.
I can see the viewpoint, but I disagree with it. It makes sense from a collectivist perspective - if you don't make children your collective will die out.
Problem is that I believe in individual rights, and the right of an individual to decide how many children to bear.
ReeeFallin
The Yankee Candle
Well I tend to disagree with inherent duty as a concept. Nobody is owed anything from or by me, period. Anything they get is at my sole discretion and whim.
I agree in principle, but there are always exceptions. I definitely can feel like I owe stuff to society in very specific and rare circumstances. But I don't want to derail, so I'll refrain from details and I'm dropping this line of conversation.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Moral obligations are a tricky thing. There are a great many activities which no one individual is obligated to engage in, and yet if no one did it, would be an utter disaster. Having children is included in this category.
This idea kind of borders on Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. To decide if an action is moral or immoral, imagine the outcome if everyone acted in such a way. Of course, the categorical imperative has its flaws, but he was onto something too.
What if no one had children anymore? Humanity would die out, which would be one of the very worst imaginable outcomes. What if we limit it to a single nation or people? What if British people all stopped having children? This would lead to an end to British people. Is this bad? I would say very much so. Oh sure, maybe immigration from Pakistan (just as one example) would bolster the declining British population - but though they may be living in the British Isles, they won’t be British people any more than I am a Cherokee because I am living on land that they used to occupy. If you think that it’s fine for the British to disappear and be replaced by Pakistanis, then I would invite you to live in the UK for a while and then live in Pakistan for a while and compare and contrast the differences.
Of course, nobody is obligated to have kids, unless nobody is having kids in which case maybe it starts to become an obligation.
Maybe no one is obligated to stand up for what they believe in when it is dangerous to do so, but if no one is willing to, then there will be profound tangible and negative effects from failure to engage in these non-obligations.
This idea kind of borders on Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. To decide if an action is moral or immoral, imagine the outcome if everyone acted in such a way. Of course, the categorical imperative has its flaws, but he was onto something too.
What if no one had children anymore? Humanity would die out, which would be one of the very worst imaginable outcomes. What if we limit it to a single nation or people? What if British people all stopped having children? This would lead to an end to British people. Is this bad? I would say very much so. Oh sure, maybe immigration from Pakistan (just as one example) would bolster the declining British population - but though they may be living in the British Isles, they won’t be British people any more than I am a Cherokee because I am living on land that they used to occupy. If you think that it’s fine for the British to disappear and be replaced by Pakistanis, then I would invite you to live in the UK for a while and then live in Pakistan for a while and compare and contrast the differences.
Of course, nobody is obligated to have kids, unless nobody is having kids in which case maybe it starts to become an obligation.
Maybe no one is obligated to stand up for what they believe in when it is dangerous to do so, but if no one is willing to, then there will be profound tangible and negative effects from failure to engage in these non-obligations.