Lex Talionis principle and trans kids getting surgeries

Theorem: Body Ownership is Inalienable

Axioms / Principles

Principle of Equal Powers (PEP): Any ability given to one person must, by fairness, be given to all.

Types of Abilities:

Among the abilities covered by PEP are:

a. The ability to determine truth.

b. The ability to determine moral truth.

c. The ability to determine what counts as sufficient justification.

Definition of Ownership: To own X means no one else may rightfully remove X from the owner.

Proof Step 1. Consider body ownership.

There are two possible assignments of ability:

Case A: A person has the ability to decide when others lose body ownership.

Case B: A person does not have that ability.

Step 2. Suppose Case A is true.

Then, by PEP, if one person can decide a justification for stripping body ownership, all people must have the same ability.

Step 3. If all people can decide what counts as sufficient justification, then:

For any reason whatsoever, anyone could declare another person’s body ownership void.

Since this ability is universal, everyone can simultaneously void everyone else’s ownership.

Step 4. If everyone can void everyone else’s ownership, then secure body ownership does not exist.

Contradiction: “ownership” cannot exist if no one can securely hold it (by Axiom 3).

Step 5. Therefore, Case A is impossible.

Step 6. By elimination, only Case B remains: no one has the ability to decide when others lose body ownership.

Step 7. From Case B, it follows that body ownership is inalienable: each person necessarily owns their own body, and this cannot be revoked by others.

Corollary: Application to Trans Kids

Ownership of one’s body includes authority to decide what to do with it, including medical choices. Denying a trans child the right to make medical decisions about their body would mean granting others the ability to decide when body ownership can be overridden. By the proof above, such a power cannot be selectively granted; if granted at all, it must be universal, which destroys ownership. Therefore, denying trans kids’ medical decisions on body ownership grounds is logically impossible.

This should cover my position on many issues without me directly arguing for anything too sensitive. So if this open forum has a response, they are welcome to give it.

Body ownership is the subjective feeling that your body and its parts belong to you, an aspect of bodily self-consciousness that arises from integrating sensory information from your body. This sense can be manipulated in experiments, such as the rubber-hand illusion, and involves neural processes, particularly in the premotor cortex and parietal cortex, that integrate visual, tactile, and proprioceptive signals. 

The principal is inherently false, it attempts to insinuate knowledge of truth.

Your principal of powers is also false. Not only do you undermine free will as to attain to what powers you desire, you also actively disregard the natural and inherit inabilities that are in similar nature of that power.

The precepts and "axioms" arent at all connected to reality, and have to be considered in a vaccum like "safe space" for them to not be shot down instantly.

If this is a attempt at a thought experiment, gj i guess? You found another way to deny reality.

Body ownership is the subjective feeling that your body and its parts belong to you,

How it works:

1. Spatiotemporal congruence: 
2. For the brain to recognize something as your body part, its appearance, touch, and location need to be consistent and align in time. 
3. 
   
4. Brain regions involved: 
5. Cortical areas such as the premotor cortex and posterior parietal cortex are crucial for integrating these sensory signals and generating a sense of body ownership. Subcortical regions like the cerebellum and putamen also play a role. 
6. 
   

How it can be studied: 

1. Rubber-Hand Illusion: 
2. This famous experimental paradigm demonstrates how the brain can be fooled into incorporating an artificial body part (like a rubber hand) into the body's schema, even causing real body parts to be sensed erroneously.
3. Manipulating perception: 
4. Researchers can manipulate body ownership by creating situations where visual, tactile, and proprioceptive signals are either synchronized or desynchronized to study how these signals are integrated.

Distinction from agency: 

1. Body ownership: is the sense of "mine", while agency is the sense of "I control it".
2. You can feel ownership of a body part without having a sense of agency over it, and vice versa, though they are related concepts.

Literally wasnt what i talked about at all.

The principle that "trans people should own their own bodies" is an articulation of bodily autonomy and self-determination, meaning that transgender individuals have the fundamental right to make decisions about their own bodies, including choices regarding their gender identity and medical care. This right encompasses access to gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy or counseling, and the freedom to make personal choices about appearance, identity, and healthcare, free from external pressure or discrimination. 

Again. Not what i discussed. Wanna ask me this time or keep assuming?

You are off topic again. Try understanding what body ownership means and how it affects trans kids getting surgeries.

So you are gonna keep assuming. Got it.

The principal is inherently false, it attempts to insinuate knowledge of truth.

It is false because it attempts to be true?

Your principal of powers is also false. Not only do you undermine free will as to attain to what powers you desire, you also actively disregard the natural and inherit inabilities that are in similar nature of that power.

I suggest writing your counter argument in a more logical form. Free will wasnt even mentioned by me. Also, ability to determine who has no ability is self contradictive, because you cant decide who has that ability.

You missed the point. If you assert all have ability, then you must assert all have inability. If you have ability to make a child, you have inability to do it with your own body alone. If you have ability to identify self, then you have inability to define what isnt self outside of self

If you have ability to determine what is true, then you must acknowledge your inability to know all truths, as you define self and truth be YOUR perimeters, you are unable to ascertain or verify self and truth outside yourself. Therefore, your philosophy succeeds in saying nothing, and is ultimately vain and altogether unrealisic and detached from other people's realities.

Like i concluded. This vain imagination can only be concocted in a "safe space" of imagination devoid of reality, much less challenge.

If you assert all have ability, then you must assert all have inability

Ability of A cannot at the same time be inability of A.

If you have ability to make a child, you have inability to do it with your own body alone

And?

If you have ability to identify self, then you have inability to define what isnt self outside of self

So if people dont have ability to define others, that doesnt even disprove my argument. But nowhere did I make the claim that people cannot define things outside themselves. I merely stated that people claiming ownership of others results in contradiction. What you are saying has nothing to do with any of my arguments.

If you have ability to determine what is true, then you must acknowledge your inability to know all truths,

Each person can determine truth regarding their own body. Other option is that no one can determine truth, which is self defeating. So if your claim is that no one can determine truth, such claim likewise wouldnt be true by your own logic.

you are unable to ascertain or verify self and truth outside yourself.

I am sure people have eyes and senses and logic which are used to verify truth outside themselves. But again, I dont see what does that have to do with my arguments. People cannot impose their truth on others, and that argument still remains true. So instead of saying irrelevant things, maybe you can try solving the contradiction:

1. People can impose their truth on others.
2. People cannot impose their truth on others

Because 1 would enable anyone to impose truth on anyone and negate anyone's truth, it is self contradicting.

So it is either 1 or 2, and 1 is self contradictive.

So unless you can provide explanation how 1 isnt contradictive, the only thing remaining is 2.

Because 1 obviously requires that certain person or group is "superior" in justification in order to be justified imposing, and justification itself requires ability to determine justification as valid, and this ability likewise cannot be decided to belong to any specific group alone.

So if no specific group holds "special power" to make valid justification, no valid justification can be made by any group.

Arbitrary justifications are not enough and these can be made by anyone, thus useful to no one.

Here is the best test of your philosophy. If you have xx chromosomes, have a baby without sperm.

If you have xy chromosomes, develop a egg and embryo in yourself.

If you attempted to identify as NOT your biological sex, reality shows it. Thats why fake wombs and other technologies are introduced.

Your identification of self is disproven by reality, and is therefore vain, vain in that its a self serving thing.

Thats where this philosphy falls apart, it asserts ability but doesnt consider consequences and rewards of ability.

When you as a xx or xy prove the above challenges, ill take this philosophy seriously, until then, i rest my case.

You should rest your brain. Your logic goes against facts.

You a guy? Make an embryo or egg.

You a girl? Have a child without male sperm.

Ill wait.

This is a stupid debate. It's self evident and part of civilized society that minors dont always have the same rights and privileges and abilities as adults. If u wanna allow Trans surgeries of minors fine I understand but dont start with the premise that minors are basically the same as adults

Here is the best test of your philosophy. If you have xx chromosomes, have a baby without sperm.

You can with AI, but I never claimed to be able to have baby without sperm, so its irrelevant to anything ever.

It's self evident and part of civilized society that minors dont always have the same rights and privileges and abilities as adults

Unless you can solve the contradiction which comes with giving one part of population ability to deny other of body autonomy, I am afraid nothing is self-evident. Also, UN declaration of rights says children get a choice, so I am not sure what "self evident" thing are you talking about. You are supposed to make arguments.

Its self evident cause kids are always being limited and everyone understands that's the way ot should be. Do u think 6 year old girls can consent to sex with a 40 year old man? Do u think every kid should have the right to vote? Voting isn't body autonomy but it affects each other. Should kids be allowed to drive? Smoke and get drunk and do drugs? Join the military? Kill themselves? Run away from home? Skip school completely?

Maybe I needed to state the obvious here but I still maintain its self evident

I believe body autonomy can only be limited when it contradicts body autonomy of another. Thats the only case where it logically can and must be limited. In other words, I dont believe you get to make choices about my body if I am 10, 20 or 30. There is no logical law which gives you the special right to take away my rights using arbitrary justification. Maybe you can explain why you get such special power, and I dont?

Take some biology classes so you can catch up with the rest.

Smoke and get drunk and do drugs? Kill themselves? Run away from home? Skip school completely? Maim themselves?

Logically there are no laws, other than Universal physical laws of course.

Otherwise, law is a variable social concept.

And trans enablement relies upon a whole raft of social provision overseen by the governance of State and society.

So if State and society says no to medical and surgical provision, then that is the be all and end of it until such times when State and society says yes.

If I dont violate your rights, why would you violate mine? Am I your property? Am I property of majority? Who is the one who gets to take away rights of others at will?

And trans enablement relies upon a whole raft of social provision overseen by the governance of State and society.

I dont think government or majority owns people. If that was true, then slavery of the past was okay because majority agreed with it. Slaves in Egypt were small minority, and majority agreed that they should be slaves. If you want to say slavery, forced labor, forced marriages, rape...ect. are all okay as long as majority agrees, I am afraid such morality has no morality.

In social choice theory, the majority rule (MR) is a social choice rule which says that, when comparing two options (such as bills or candidates), the option preferred by more than half of the voters (a majority) should win. In political philosophy, the majority rule is one of two major competing notions of democracy.

I was just pointing out, that although trans is a free state of mind, when it comes to enablement trans becomes a social issue, and society is governed..."Rights" are dictated by State and society and not by the wants of the individual.

If rights were dictated by the wants of the individual, then should we not afford the rapist the same rights as the victim.

And in the past, slavery was okay, as dictated by past governance and social majority in relation to past moral thinking and past laws.

Things eventually changed.

"Rights" are dictated by State and society

Incorrect, rights are dictated by logical laws. However, you have that slave morality issue where you think government or society owns you.