Every formal declaration of rights I have encountered, probably sharing similar sources*, have important similarities. They are logically inconsistent in their own terms. The corollary is that they are political guidelines and depend on various systems of unstated practices of interpretation, conventions and tradition.
The problem of logical consistency is more attenuated the greater the number of explicit protections they enumerate. They not only become more reliant on presupposed assumptions, those assumptions multiply and create novel tensions. Should every name be attached to the same phraseology, the list of all men and all their rights would become a prohibition against differentiation of any kind. It is a degenerate case involving the annihilation of anything human and anything right.
Neil Harbisson is an "activist for transpecies rights" and self described cyborg. Fully colorblind, his head implant is a light sensor on his head that converts colors into vibrations used to distinguish color. https://www.emmaion.com/post/cyborgs-citizens-and-rights
I have no quarrel with prosthetics, but the gimmicky terminology disguises a novel and dangerous moral framework. It redefines prosthetics as a physical component of self. They declare rights for mutants[?], a right not to be "disassembled" and a right to "express" one's self through temporary or permanent body modification.
Everything plausible about it is a restatement of principles of fairness and dignity. But our moral nature is not purely internal and selfish in essence. Extending an absolute moral privilege of the individual to include prosthetics is no less myopic. The degree of individualism arbitrarily isolates inner lives from how we relate to the world around us. As Quintilian of Counter-Currents says of the American Founders beliefs, "...a well-ordered and just society could only exist when it was composed of rational individuals with virtuous and well-ordered inner lives."
In brief, it is special pleading in the guise of universal values.
In the case of sexuality, the social connotations are explicit. In the milieu of sexually dysfunctional minorities today, both sexual proclivities and their expression are adamantly normal. As with the cybernetic moral code, sexual expression is axiomatically harmless [Diddle unto others as you'd have them diddle you]. In practice, they contend it should be celebrated - whether in the form of pronouns, clubs or parades. Actions, words and beliefs which run counter to these dogmas are considered violations of human rights.**
The rainbow mob, like their cybernetic cousins, couch novel rights as direct descendants of the traits of moral policies generally owed among man. But these are not human rights, they are guidelines prohibiting discrimination among sexual behaviors and proclivities.
The language of the rainbow mob lacks a meaningful basis to exclude the silent P in LGBT. Note: they make no attempt to do so. Although couching their morality in terms of consent, the T's belie that façade. Harmful sexual actions perpetrated against young children have been enacted with force of law.
It begs the question: Is there a point at which performative dysfunctions legitimate discrimination? With a hypocritical modicum of consistency, Sailee Khurjekar says no.
Part II to discuss "Discrimination"