> Blanchard served on the gender dysphoria sub-working group for the DSM-IV.

> Blanchard served as chair of the paraphilia sub-working group for the DSM-5. Transgender activists protested the appointment for the DSM-5. The National LGBTQ Task Force issued a statement questioning the APA's decision to appoint Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker to the DSM-5 working group for Gender and Sexual Identity Disorders, stating that, "Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard are clearly out of step with the occurring shift in how doctors and other health professionals think about transgender people and gender variance."

Views on transgender people

> In a December 2017 article, Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey wrote an article for 4thWaveNow—a site that opposes gender-affirming care for young transgender people—supporting the concept of "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" (ROGD).

> In an interview with Vice, Blanchard expressed the view that trans people, "should be considered as whatever their biological sex is plus the fact that they are transsexuals." Blanchard rejected the idea that treating gender dysphoria as a mental disorder contributes to stigma against the trans community, adding: "I mean, how many people who make a joke about tr-nnies consult the DSM first?"

> In November 2023, Blanchard stated on his official Twitter account that in his view "it’s irrelevant whether a man can become a woman or vice versa. What’s relevant is whether individuals tormented by the desire to be the opposite sex are happier when they present that way, and whether or how much the majority of society is willing to accommodate this."

.

I know that they both have something to do with social contract theory.

Or does natural law by definition have a normative component? If so, would a "prescriptive-free natural law" theory simply be an anthropological/sociological account, and unrelated to philosophy?

Once you understand this and See The Cat, you can't go back

Filmer’s Patriarcha makes two claims:

• Kings rule subjects the way fathers rule children.
• Adam had absolute authority over his family; monarchs inherit this authority.

Locke seems to dedicate most of his Two Treatises on attacking Filmer's second claim.

My reading is that Filmer's first claim can be secularized/separated from the religiosity of his second claim, in that:

1. Human beings begin life in radical dependency
2. The family is the original political unit
3. Parental authority is the earliest form of governance
4. Political authority is a continuation of parental authority
5. Hierarchy is natural because this dependency is natural
6. Authority originates in care, not consent
7. Political obligation is inherited, not chosen
8. Monarchy is a natural extension of social organization
9. Political equality is therefore artificial and unstable
10. Political authority is justified by competence and responsibility

Locke’s natural‑rights theory assumes:

• Humans are born free.
• Humans are born equal.
• Humans have natural property rights independent of social structures.
• Humans can consent to political authority.

But empirically:

• Humans are born radically dependent.
• Infants cannot exercise rights, autonomy, or consent.
• Property rights are socially constructed.
• Political authority emerges from social organization, not individual consent.

How have other philosophers responded to the empirical ambiguity of Locke's theory of natural rights and his strawmanning(?) of Filmer's Patriachalism?

I'm more convinced by utilitarian arguments like:

>taxing rental income and untaxing labor and capital income maximizes economic welfare for almost all stakeholders, brings the market closest to functioning under perfect competition, and leaves the least amount of people worse off after the reform.

Compared to:

>Land is a free gift of God/nature so its value should be shared among the community.

Does anyone else feel the same?

I. Gross Income per Land Use per Parcel

Parcel \ Use	1	2	3	4
A	$100	$87.50	$75	$62.50
B	—	$35	$30	$25
C	—	—	$12	$10
D	—	—	—	$4

II. Total Costs per Land Use per Parcel

Parcel \ Use	1	2	3	4
A	$100	$35	$12	$4
B	—	$35	$12	$4
C	—	—	$12	$4
D	—	—	—	$4

III. Rent/Net Income per Land Use per Parcel

Parcel \ Use	1	2	3	4
A	$0	$52.50	$63	$58.50
B	—	$0	$18	$21
C	—	—	$0	$6
D	—	—	—	$0

IV. After-Tax Rent/Net Income Per Land Use per Parcel

A. 10% Gross Income Tax (GIT)

Parcel \ Use	1	2	3	4
A	−$10	$43.75	$55.50	$52.25
B	—	−$3.50	$15	$18.50
C	—	—	−$1.20	$5.60
D	—	—	—	−$0.40

B. 100% Land-Value Tax (LVT)

Parcel \ Use	1	2	3	4
A	$0	$0	$0	$0
B	—	$0	$0	$0
C	—	—	$0	$0
D	—	—	—	$0

C. >100% (120%) LVT

Parcel \ Use	1	2	3	4
A	$0	−$10.50	−$12.60	−$11.70
B	—	$0	−$3.60	−$4.20
C	—	—	$0	−$1.20
D	—	—	—	$0