Joona Räsänen is a Finn and a “bioethicist” who teaches philosophy at the University of Oslo. But we are not going to talk ontology or mereology or modal logic, here — not intentionally, anyway. The subject is “trans-ageism.”
A hotter topic in philosophy?
Räsänen has had a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a peer-reviewed academic publication. Entitled “Moral case for legal age change,” it has attracted attention.
To be expected when you write something this absurd: “Should a person who feels his legal age does not correspond with his experienced age be allowed to change his legal age?”
Well, the question answers itself.
No.
But Räsänen answers yes, “in some cases people should be allowed to change their legal age.” He lists those cases as when
- “the person genuinely feels his age differs significantly from his chronological age”
- “the person’s biological age is recognised to be significantly different from his chronological age”
- “age change would likely prevent, stop or reduce ageism, discrimination due to age, he would otherwise face.”
Witness how far the idiocies of post-structuralist, post-modernist, post-somethingist intersectionalism have brought us: to insisting that the State should adapt to our feelings rather than merely acknowledge simple facts.
Hopefully, the author carefully explains the difference between “legal age” and “chronological age.” That latter sounds like a pleonasm, to me, a redundancy. But then, I haven’t even read Henri Bergson, the philosopher who made hay with “dureé.”
We can only hope Räsänen takes care, here, because we certainly won’t read it, right?
If you think I need to read the whole article to comment on it, hey: I’ve trans-read it.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)