Same concept applies to any different type of women. I can be a straight man and say I like women. But in reality maybe I don’t like women with short hair or women with a certain personality trait. No less straight for that. All women are women but being straight doesn’t mean you like every single type of women in the world.

I would see this as the term straight and gay not being a complete description of one’s sexuality and leaving some ambiguities. If you’re a man and you say you’re straight then it’s clear you like cis women. Doesn’t mean that you necessarily like trans women. At the same time if you are straight and like trans women you are no less straight. If youre straight and like trans women and you want that fact to be explicitly clear you have to add something to the single word description straight. Same would apply to the word gay or lesbian.

Do things really need a justification to exist?

I currently have a tiny ant hill outside my house. They are thankfully of the kind that don’t attack the house or cause any kind of damage. They are chill and I don’t mind them. Maybe they do some small good to the ecosystem but if that specific anthill disappeared no one would really notice. It wasn’t there last year and everything in my life was the same. Does that ant hill need a justification to exist? No. And I mean that no matter if it was a good ant or a bad ant. Those ants are just there. Let’s say they were the kind of ant that does eat up the house. Then I would want to exterminate them. But that has nothing to do with their justification for existing. I would then remove them because they destroy my house, not because they haven’t earned the right to exist.

I don’t believe we have to earn a right to exist. We just exist. Existence is very neutral. A rock on Mars also exists and that’s nothing extraordinary. If that rock suddenly breaks no one is gonna care. However some things have value because of other traits than simply existing. If we suddenly learned that there was a human on Mars that no one knows or previously cared about, but we now know about him and he is in danger. Then he would be very valuable and I would even say invaluable and we should try to save him! It’s the human part that adds value.

So first off no one has to earn the right to exist. People just happen to exist and that’s a neutral thing. But I also happen to believe human life is invaluable. I think that’s even in the UN declaration of human rights somewhere. Now how useful you are does not mean you are more valuable. Human life is already invaluably high. Same with if you are a detriment to others. I don’t believe in the death penalty. If your value was how useful you were then we would kill everyone who was a net drag on society but I think very few people believe that. Even a serial killer I wouldn’t kill. However I would lock him up for the sake of others.

So you don’t have to show that you are worthy of existing. I don’t believe in that. I also don’t believe you have to prove that you are valuable. As I believe all human life is invaluable. You could however have to show that you are a net benefit to society. But that’s a whole other point and I really don’t believe everyone has to have a net benefit. Some can contribute a lot, some can’t contribute at all. And that’s ok. Contributing a lot to society is admirable and should be heavily encouraged. But it shouldn’t be necessary to be valued as a human being. The Nazis used to think that your value was tied strongly to your societal contribution and exterminated disabled people. I think that’s an unfathomable crime no matter how much of a drag those people were on society. If you exist AND you are a homo sapiens. You are invaluable no matter what.

Sorry for rambling. I’ll get to bed now.