Gender Identities

It addressed your point that, for example, calling someone a king would mean you would have to treat like them like a member of the royal family. I explained this already.

How do you know that peering into the windows of other peoples homes requires active intent? Some people may do it instinctively, whereas not doing that would require active intent. It requires them to change their behaviour, that's how you defined baggage up until now. It may require active intent for yourself and I but you can't assume this is the case for everyone.

It takes less effort to respect the pronouns of another person when you consider how often that will come up in practice. Unless you live like a hermit, free expresion is something you will encounter in your day-to-day life. Pronouns are not. Free expression would already have limits anyway, as it would (and does) under most other systems. The criteria I propose are the best ones being given here, you are welcome to present better ones. Until such a time a better system is presented we should go for the one that is the best out of the available options. Regarding your last point, "universal" means that the system would apply to everyone equally if put into practice. The criteria I propose may be inferior to some other, currently unknown system but they are still universal.

How do you know that peering into the windows of other peoples homes requires active intent? Some people may do it instinctively, whereas not doing that would require active intent. It requires them to change their behaviour, that's how you defined baggage up until now. It may require active intent for yourself and I but you can't assume this is the case for everyone.

It takes less effort to respect the pronouns of another person when you consider how often that will come up in practice. Unless you live like a hermit, free expresion is something you will encounter in your day-to-day life. Pronouns are not. Free expression would already have limits anyway, as it would (and does) under most other systems. The criteria I propose are the best ones being given here, you are welcome to present better ones. Until such a time a better system is presented we should go for the one that is the best out of the available options. Regarding your last point, "universal" means that the system would apply to everyone equally if put into practice. The criteria I propose may be inferior to some other, currently unknown system but they are still universal.

That's not the issue with it though. The issue is that if I call someone a king (and it's not just intended as a name or title), I'd be saying something I consider to be false.



Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps someone has huge windows and leaves their curtains wide open and passers-by can't help but see into their house. In that case I don't think that it is their moral responsibility to avert their eyes; then it would constitute baggage, and the occupants of the house aren't entitled to have them carry it. However, when it is the peering that involves active intent as opposed to not peering (e.g. someone is standing outside with a pair of binoculars or with their face pressed up against the window trying to see into the house), then not doing this would not be baggage, and can be considered a matter of basic respect.


There's no reason why anyone has to agree that this is the "best" system just because you say it is. "Best" is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that mine is better.