I have directly answered it three times now and quoted. So, yeah. Far be it from me...

Does this help:

What you say seems to imply that you think that seeing a particular colour and that particular colour are the same thing. — Janus

Seeing a particular colour is a sensation, right? Let's call "visual sensation of Blue".

My response:

colours are obviously visual sensations.(of Blue, let's say) 'seeing a colour' is that sensation — AmadeusD

If a colour is a visual sensation (i maintain it is) and that, as noted clearly above "seeing a colour" consists in that sensation, I can't see the difficulty in understanding that then 'a' colour = seeing 'a' colour. . This is necessary, given what I've said. The visual sensation of Blue is what Blue, the colour, consists in.

This was in the quoted passages. That it was missed is... odd. The answer is obviously 'Yes, but your grammar is wanting..


Therefore, if "seeing a colour" is, to Janus, an experience of that colour - that is what the given colour consists in. It is a three-pronged (possible)fact.
1. Seeing a colour is a sensation.
2.That sensation is the particular colour being 'seen' (i dislike that term, in this context but there we go).
3. If 'seeing a colour' is Janus' preferred term for 'the visual sensation of XXX', that's great. The fact I didn't use his terminology and his grammar doesn't make my response any less direct.

So i've now had to be far less direct than my answer initially was, to elucidate what seems a necessary inference. I can't grasp what was lost...

I can only recommend looking up what question begging actually is — Count Timothy von Icarus

but even there the problem you seem to think you've identified is circular reasoning — Count Timothy von Icarus

This may be true... You've given no reason to take 'natural rights' seriously, so teh rest of the syllogism isn't apt (in my view.. just outlining clearly what my objection is).

What's the only possible source for natural rights? — Count Timothy von Icarus

God or similar.

I have to say, the use of a theory isn't particularly interesting if it's trying to justify something which on its face, is absurd (on my view). 'natural rights' isn't a coherent concept, so I'm unsure how I'm supposed to get on with theories that begin with something I can't understand how a rational person would involve.

Ah, i see Ok. Fair enough, thank you.

To me, that is just another way of rephrasing compassion and caring. — Beverley

Then you are not in touch with the concepts at hand. Ironic.

I'd be surprised if anyone actually did that. People can feel sympathy for others and feel sad, but crying themselves into a black hole seems like a bit of an over exaggeration. — Beverley

I responded to a specific occasion of OP claiming this is their stance... It's also very much in-line with two decades of experience trying to do the compassion-as-worldview thing, and it leading me to ... lets say reject it, to be less verbose. My feelings are much deeper than that.

You are taking a very negative viewpoint of this for some reason. — Beverley

Not in any way. I am pointing out the fallacious point of pretending that emotional states solve problems.

I get extreme pleasure out of helping others when I can, and it gives me a surge of hope (as it probably also does for the person I am helping) not despair. For me, looking at things from your point of view on this really would make me feel like despairing! But everyone is different I guess. — Beverley

Extreme certainly strikes me as odd, but otherwise, I more or less agree, but this has nothing to do with what I've said or put forward. This is true enough for me too - which is why I volunteered running a mental health charity for several years among other things. You seem to be still talking about something I have already addressed, though, so perhaps this is going to devolve into me having to point out that you're ignoring me, as our other two threads have done:

There are precisely zero examples of any problem which isn't an interpersonal (i.e an emotional disagreement or similar) problem, being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole. — AmadeusD

You can ignore the part you view as exaggeration (because you didn't make the statement it replied to..),. But, clarifying this otherwise, I am speaking here about hte fact that in dealing with other individuals we need to employ compassion and empathy. Though, the fact is this needs to be guarded very well. It is the weak carrying compassion who are manipulated, rode over, pushed and pulled etc... Into the people the scenarios OP is whining about.
So, in this context I'm actually in agreement, But i still think the sanguine, irrational mode of OP's suggestions are... exactly that, and do not solve problems.
When it comes to 'world issues' or 'national issues' let's say, compassion is pretty much the worst of all possible avenues to attack from.

A case in point is that currently our (NZ) social housing organisation, Kainga Ora, is under serious fire. What's the reason: Too much compassion.

They have, under successively shit governments been mandated to basically do absolutely nothing about their tenants abusing neighbours, destroying property and generally being violent wankers. Compassion is the reason. These tenants are struggling - some with addictions, some with mental health issues, some with bad socialisation, some with cultural disconnection etc.. etc.. etc.. .All shitty things.
But their behaviour is violating the rights of others to a point that we cannot employ compassion to solve this problem. The victims need seeing to, and the perpetrators do not require further compassion. They need consequences to prevent further harm to others. Compassion will solve no part of this problem. A rational apportionment of force as between two conflicting parties, from without, is required. This is actually true of any group conflict, or even badly-communicated personal ones.

What's actually happened?
What's actually wrong?
How do we solve it?

Compassion isn't involved here.

They actually prevent many problems and solve many problems. — Truth Seeker

In some scenarios, this is definitely true. But it touches not what you've intimated, and what I have in turn speculatively responded to. This is prevarication, for lack of a better term.

For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die. — jgill

This is a great example of what I'm trying to put forward - Compassion literally doesn't solve problems. If the problem is 'I need a hug' that's not what I'm talking about. That's just a mindstate someone is in - and I would only ever employ compassion in that situation.

I take it you have never needed a mother and a father and doctors and nurses and midwives to come into existence and stay alive. I wonder which species you belong to. Perhaps you are visiting from another planet and trying to understand sentient life on Earth. — Truth Seeker

Oh brother. When your response is to assume I have some disparate, alien experience to you, I can be absolutely sure you're not coming to the table with a full basket.
In short: No, Don't be ridiculous. I have a different take on this than you do. As above though, this tells me a huge amount about your intentions here.

I will be happy to give you extensive education on the importance of empathy, compassion and caring for living things on Earth. — Truth Seeker

You're wrong, and not engaging the problem, so I'll pass.

I've wondered about that. :cool: — jgill

You're not alone, obviously. And I'd have it no other way. I don't want to be particularly well-connected with those for whom compassion is the be-all-end-all. I've been through it and its self-destructive at every turn. As we're watching...

New Zealand lawyer — jgill

Not quite a lawyer, yet. But i very much appreciate the kind word :) It is very much returned, though I don't recall your occupation haha.

you haven't given a straight answer. — Janus

I have to assume you're not reading? That is exactly what the quote shows I have said - and that I directly addressed, in that quote. I requote - again, for the slow among us:

Colours are a sensation — AmadeusD

Your own grammatical reading into that is for you, not me, to clarify. If it reads as something odd, clarify it for yourself. It is a direct answer to your question, whether you accept it as adequate or not. I can't work with a charge such as 'murk' in the face of a direct answer.

So for this reason I think it's wrong to call transwomen "men." They are not. They occupy a unique third space. — BitconnectCarlos

Interesting. I disagree but find this really interesting.
What is your response to a trans man who is telling you 'well, this is my identity. I am a man, that's how I see myself and what I am emulating. Poo poo to you" ?

Any group larger than about five.

Isn't it compassion and caring that results in people taking action to help others? — Beverley

No. It is an understanding and rational apprehension of the problem, and in turn, a viable solution. There are precisely zero examples of any problem which isn't an interpersonal (i.e an emotional disagreement or similar) problem, being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole.

What project? — Truth Seeker

It is perfectly clear in my post what I am talking about. Pretending that compassion and caring solve problems, when they are literally internal emotions, is incoherent and has lead to countless deaths and the absolute incapability of society-at-large to develop faster than a snail.

natural rights — Count Timothy von Icarus

Question: Begged.

There are no natural rights.

How so? — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's the only possible source for 'natural rights'. Hence, it's incoherent to pretend we have some kind of alienable right... from... nowhere.

That sure sounds like trivializing folk psychology to me. — wonderer1

It's neither. I am speaking from my perspective - someone elses is functionally, and obviously trivial in that respect - But i was at pains to point out that I am constrasting experiences, and not putting one above the other.

On the characterization, I'd just point you to any special interest group. Eating its tail. Always. Psychology is a folk practice, so ...idc. LOL

Let’s say you want to excel at something and soar beyond all your competitors. How do you do this? Well, first you have to have to find people to compete against that are the closer to your level of performance as possible. — Joshs

This seems very much not what we're talking about. But, i'm with you thus far..

You cant up the level of your tennis game against a backboard; you need a community of players to push you further. — Joshs

Agreed (I read this in Eugene Levy's voice lol).

They encouraged my individuality, not my conformity. Their ‘gayness’ was more of an open tent, a welcoming attitude toward all kinds of alternative ways of being, than a ghettoized clique. — Joshs

I am glad to hear this was your experience. Hmm - (as above response to wonderer1, this next part is giving contrast - not an argument)I've been in several, disparate 'gay' and 'queer' communities. I fucking hate them. I detest everything I went through trying to be friends with those people. Any opinion that didn't align with the group was grounds for not just ostracization but attempts to belittle me in my work life, family life and other social endeavours. It was harrowing, and disgusting (in two specific examples, anyhow). One of my children was put through essentially a Struggle Session in an attempt to have them tell their school that i was an unfit parent. And this is a common experience. (i note, entirely for thoroughness, that some of my points above might logically lead to my saying that your enjoyment was in fact a result of your conformity(in the sense of alignment - not like they forced you or anything) to the in-group's value system - which is great - find your tribe.. But it unfortunately supports my point, if that were the case - I don't assume either way).

It is this pitfall I guess that I am talking about. It is common, and seems to exist in all avenues of special interest (political factions, sexuality, table top games, BDSM... anything). Your experience also - I'm just talking about the other side of that coin that I have experienced as a contrast, to support the potential problematic nature of retreating into special interest groups. It has only ever brought me pain and suffering.

Just because people gather in a group based on shared interests doesn’t mean that they are there to form a hive mind. The opposite may be the case. — Joshs

Agreed - it's very rarely the intent - Though i think this is a bit naive. Special interest groups ipso facto are trying to create groups of closely-aligned members. Very hard to do so if, for instance, your conception of being Gay/Bi/Whatever doesn't include a civil rights aspect (mine doesn't, really) - or, a great eg here would be Gay communities that do not accept trans men (or the converse, in contrast to it's opposite).
Underline: Totally, and that's the strength or success of diversity, on my view. But if you're part of that hivemind, you wouldn't see it as a problem. Which is, as above, fine. that's your tribe! Dive right in. My point is, had you differed sufficiently from the values of the group, the fact that you wanted a welcoming Gay community would fall by the wayside and your opinions become grounds for rejection. That's the difficult part... Imagine yourself in that predicament, being rejected from a community with your exact interests in their purported aims.

Perhaps someday? — wonderer1

Perhaps. But psychology is largely bollocks to me, so who knows.

It's sanguine platitudes, out of touch with reality. There seems to be some underlying belief in a 'perfect world' which has absolutely no basis for its conception, let alone actually trying for it.
This project has lead to the deaths of 100s of millions across the human epoch. No one more than I recognizes the internal need to carry with you empathy, compassion and psychological adaptiveness with respect to them - But hte idea that this will solve problems (particuarlly ones you note) is absurd, for many reasons, not least of which is the historical abject failure (an in fact, patent harm) of that project.

On the contrary, it is the lack of compassion and caring that creates the problems in life. If everyone cared about everyone then the world would be a much happier place. Murder, torture, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, slavery, exploitation, etc. would vanish. The world has enough to meet everyone's needs. It does not have enough to meet anyone's greed. If only everyone would commit to saving and improving all lives. I am not paralysed. I have saved and improved some lives already and plan to save and improve even more lives. — Truth Seeker

More of the same, really.

I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death. — Truth Seeker

This seems to be around about the mentality of the perpetually paralyzed.
I was in this mentality for some time - I eventually realised that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems. I evolved from it.

I read the other day that Sartre wrote 17 pages of text for everyday he was alive. — Rob J Kennedy

This explains so much. Anyone who writes that much is going to come across pompous, lacking imagination and any semblance of contact with the real world.

'tis a joke ;)

Saturday, 23 March.

I have it set for 10am NZD which is
5pm Friday EST
2pm Friday WST
9pm GMT


I hope this allows for others to join. If not, I am more than open to other times. Just wanted something solid in place that we can work with.

Won't they mean something in that we can point to the evil being done in their violation? — Count Timothy von Icarus

This seems to beg it's question. The 'evil' seems to consist in the violation of a right. If so, without hte right, there is no evil.

We can just look at different rights afforded in different jurisdictions to note that there is, at the very least, different conceptions of what a right "outside of law" might consist in. Ultimately I think it is a fact that rights are a legal tool for enforcing moral norms, and naught else. It would be great to know about some inalienable rights, not conferred from on high - but that seems incoherent to me too.

It was pretty typical, and I know everyone in their own way feels like a freak in some respect when they’re growing up. It doesnt take much;. a weird name, a big nose, geeky clothes will do it. — Joshs

Hmm. That's the thing - I don't think everyone does. I didn't, despite, objectively, being rather different and bullied for it. I didn't feel at all less, or more, than anyone else. Maybe I'm the unique one here, though. It may be apples/oranges and I have a 'curse of knowledge' type thing going on.

Plugging into groups on the basis of shared perspectives was a valuable part of the foundation for — Joshs

"...for that" or some similar reference, I assume?
Fair enough. As i say, not trivialising - but to reverse the mode of the above response, I think this may be uniquely you. Most aren't strong enough in their personality to allow for this actualisation while under the influence of an in-group (particularly one that feels somehow victimized).

It’s a crucial way to learn about yourself, to define who you are and who you want to be, not by conforming to the group but by comparing experiences so that you can define yourself uniquely. — Joshs

This hits me, intuitively, and having watched the world turn, as incorrect - or at the very least, intensely sanguine and not really how it happens. Groups of affinity aren't designed to foster difference (nor do they incidentally do so). This context is actually an apt one - trans individuals who do not tout the same concepts and ideas we're, perhaps wrongly, discussing, are ostracized as not the 'right kind of trans' (as it is with blacks, Jews, feminists etc....). Affinity groups seem to reinforce irrational self-image.

Think about non neuro-typical communities. Imagine how connecting with such a group can help a non neuro-typical individual discover their strengths and build their confidence. — Joshs

Being non-neuro-typical, I think about this alot. I just can't get over to the part of the thought that says its important to do so. As somewhere above, maybe that part is just me - but I just don't understand it.

It would be like a male having a vagina or a female having a penis. — Philosophim

:smirk: Nice

No straight answers or arguments or anything interesting, so nothing to respond to... — Janus

Underlined: Patently false:

colours are obviously visual sensations. 'seeing a colour' is that sensation — AmadeusD

Colours are a sensation (well, a class of sensations, anyway). Read into that what you will, using your own grammar — AmadeusD

Bolded: that explains a fair bit. If you aren't interested in the clarity needed for this issue, that you appear to not really want - I cannot help there :) And this is not derogatory. If that is not what you're looking for, I've been barking up the wrong tree.

Italicised: haha, ok buddy.

how I feel about someone may be in sharp contrast to how I feel I should be by philosophical introspection. Even if I never mention that to their face. — substantivalism

Very interesting. Appreciate both parts of the wider response here.

While this interchange is inconsequential between friends, if the person has the power to actually fire the director and ensure they never make a movie again, we need to ask if the action taken from the initial emotion is rational. — Philosophim

Yes. I think swapping out a few terms, this is generalizable (it looks like perhaps that was covered further down the thread...).

I had in mind memories of growing up feeling different and alienated from most of my male classmates, as well as my father, brothers and cousins, on the basis of behaviors and comportments that I believe I was born with, that I didn’t fully understand or know how to articulate. And not overcoming this outsider status until I found a gay community within which I could see myself as normal. — Joshs

With the utmost respect, thsi seems a peculiarity of certain personalities. It is not at all obvious to me that your scenario is even a rational response to 'being different'. I was, and still am, a very, very odd person, from most people's perspective sexually, hobbies, mentation, habits etc.. and this from being very, very young and open about myself because I chose not to care what others did. My 'outsider status' never arose, because it didn't occur to me as helpful. I do not think your inability to overcome yours says much more than that you perhaps were naturally predisposed to reject things you didn't relate to.

I want to be clear: i am not trying to trivialise your experience. It's yours. I have nothing to say about it. I'm offering mine, and I am pointing out that people do things differently and react differently. There is no reason to think someone who doesn't feel victimized as you hasn't been through the same things. I think that's a serious mistake, and one which runs rampant through this type of discourse (one of hte main reasons Twitter is such a fucking cess pit... No matter what you say, someone can read your mind!).

You missed this then. I noted that yes, behavior differences can be driven by sex, but the only way they are provably so is if they are only found in that sex. If behaviors are found cross sex, then they are obviously not restricted to sex alone. — Philosophim

This might be a premature conclusion. IN a world where there are female and male brains, easily identifiable and uncontroversial - aberrations in development could feasibly lead to an otherwise fully male person attaining some behaviour due to their brain structure, only found in 'female brains'.
Would we be happy, then, to note that this is a medical malfunction? Or are we going to still pretend there's a spectrum? Note the premise.

I think we live in an attempted dictatorship of values. And one to which I'm not entirely averse. I am somewhat, though, as it's just the standard "tyranny of public opinion" we were warned against, at the very least, 250 years ago.
Evolving values make sense, and are probably requisite of a decent society, in general - but I think when conversation is a no-no you have to start questioning your premises.

Still, there must be a point at which that inhumane corporate practice can/will end up hurting big business’s own monetary interests. One can imagine that many living and healthy consumers are needed. — FrankGSterleJr

I think its naive to think the balance wasn't struck 100 years ago, or so, to allow this to continue. I make no moral comment.

I really don't know what you are talking about. You still haven't answered my question as to whether colour and seeing colour are the same thing. You seemed to be implying that they are. If you don't believe they are then fine, we agree on that much. — Janus

I have, in fact, directly (hehe) responded twice. And the quote you used here was a clarifying statement. It is lost on me what you're not understanding at this point. I am sorry for that.

There would not seem to be any imaginable more direct ways of accessing perceptible objects — Janus

Several have been presented in this thread alone. They just aren't available to humans. Which is why to an IRist, this seems like a dumb conversation, overall. There really isn't a debate. It's as if you're saying a mirror gives direct images of things.

It's so peculiar to permit forms of perceived abnormality to such an irrational degree. Where does this naïve compassion/entertainment end and a repression of a natural shaming mentality begin? — substantivalism

While I take it you're probably joking for effect, I actually take this to be a real, evolutionary and highly effective tool in the human tool box. Artificial shame (or, arbitrary consequence) is the issue. It's pretty much unavoidable if you allow the former it's full extent in a modern society. Such is life. I enjoy a bit of motivational shame (and no, that's not an innuendo lol).

And, of course, being assigned the wrong gender or sex at birth became a corner stone of a peevish identity -- like OBGYN doctors could tell which gender a baby would be 15 years into the future? Those misleading genitals, though! The doctor saw a penis or vagina and labeled the baby accordingly. Outrageous!!! — BC

As with the previous quote from substantivalism, It's hard to tell how much of this is satire.

The physical act triggered by the Organic drives might be immutable. But to simplify it (at the risk of wandering away) all of the "associations" humans have with the word "sexuality," everything beyond organic stimulus/organic response, aren't these, to use Metaphysician Undercover term, "artificial"? — ENOAH

That may be true. It's not exactly clear what the lines in this distinction are, though. It seems probably to me that gay men, are, on average, more naturally feminine. Intuitively, this makes a lot of sense, and genetically, even more so. But, i am absolutely on board with this being something hard to prize apart from socially enforced (even to a benefit) behaviours supposedly associated with sexualities. Definitely.

As for "fight for rights" I don't follow. If you mean taking the position that non-normative sexuality must be "naturalized" to be accepted; that's the very thing I'm liberating. "Accepted," for an artificial existence, has proven many times over to be artificial. Why in this unique category do we insist on natural? — ENOAH

What i mean is that I would not have the zest I do for the right to express one's sexuality (though, apparently I'm on the outs with many others here who have the same zest... oddly enough...) responsibly (this might be the kicker :P ) If I thought sexualities were mutable, in the sense that one can adjust their sexuality somehow. I do not have any legal respect for people's personal choices of that kind. It is the immutability that, to my mind, requires the protection of fairly strong law. General protections from abuse and what not are sufficient for other types of lifestyle choices. It's not hate speech to call someone a POS for driving a Taurus :)

it is reasonable to assume that a whole range of intermediate differences in functional brain organization are regularly produced? — Joshs

This is a really interesting question. Don't think there's any good answers currently.
From what I know of the neuroscience, you can fairly compare the brain differences between cis men and gay men, with trans women and non-trans, straight men. Clearly this is only going to cover one, even if albeit, a large one, slice of the population of trans women but it would be helpful, I think to understand some multiple causes of the different types of identity.

I assume by biological differences between men and women you’re not referring to feminization of brain connections producing characteristic gender-related behaviors from birth. Rather, I take it the differences you have in mind are socially imposed due to women’s capacity for childbirth, their size and strength relative to the average man , etc — Joshs

Pretty much correct, although, I am not entirely unconvinced of the former.. .

arose due to — Joshs

This isn't what I'm speaking about in those passages. BUt that said, It seems to be that (insert my quip about 99% of people accurately recognizing 99% of 99% of 99% yadda yadda Here) is the reason the two language terms arose (or sets of "Him, he, his/Her, she, hers") due to the fact that 99% of people would find them useful for both grouping themselves and others.

because of a belief shared by many cultures in history that women were mentally inferior to men, — Joshs

This, to me, is quite bizarre either etymologically, practically or historically. There's nothing about the terms that imply this, noting that it is a fact that many cultures considered women inferior to men. You've, in this utterance, accepted that women is a distinct group. Men and women are different to degrees to make this distinction reasonable. You don't need anything negative or perniciious to make sense of htem, so i don't infer it.

I don’t think we perpetuate the ubiquitous use of he and she pronouns simply because of differences in life experiences between men and women — Joshs

We simply don't need any other reason. If you think there is one, you're free to think that. I can't see that it's the case, and it doesnt seem needed. Bit of Occam, i guess, seeping in.

I'm not even given to saying sexuality is mutable. One can be unaware of their sexuality, or an aspect of it, but it seems to me saying that its either fictional or constructed is wrong and both violates my intuitions, and my understanding of fight for rights.

That said, I wouldn't care much if it was. It would make it easier to convince homophobes to shut up. I just think this is another sort of Critical Theory conversation that was never meant to have us bring down everything considered immutable.

I am again surprised to see it resurrected here. It is the zombie strawman that will not die. — Mark S

Very much unluckily for you, I didn't do that and expressly addressed the fact that you're system is not scientific, or derived from science. It takes your assertion and then massages the 'science of morality' to support points it is not apt to support. That you have not picked that up does not mean I didn't say it. :) However, it is clear you will continue with this, ad infinitum, regardless fo response - and more power to you!

A familiar argument from trans bigotry talking points. When people straw man trans using exaggeration to argue that - 'next people will want to identify as an air conditioning unit or a maidenhair fern' - that's just bigotry wrestling with social change. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry if you are not aware - I did not make this up. THe fact that you have some store of 'trans bigotry talking points' makes it absolutely clear you are not being reasonable or sensible here. You've taken a position, you're afraid to mvoe from it and you're now deploying buzz words of social opinion to impugn a position based on fact.

There are adult babies. They claim their identity in exactly the same way trans people do. It is a fact of life. If you are having trouble conconciling the two, that's for you to work on. I provided an actual example of where this type of social politic can land up.

The fact that there are some people who are delusional or make other strange claims is irrelevant to the crux of this issue. Trans depicted as a type of Pandora's box is a popular trope. — Tom Storm

It is extremely important to the crux of this issue. Ignoring the factor of mental illness, delusion and the violation of others rights based on it, is, ironically, the half of the story you refuse to acknowledge in the discussion. I pointed that out. And here we are.

I accept that there are individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. — Tom Storm

As do I. This has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Are there some trans people who are aggressive or mentally unwell? Sure. We would find this amongst almost any group of human beings. So what? — Tom Storm

It is decidedly higher (including incidences of harm to others) among trans males. It's actually the maleness that matters, not the transness. Most people aren't capable of delineating the two.

What is it about ‘he’ and ‘she’ there make it important to use these terms in everyday conversation? — Joshs

Nothing. Most of hte time, people are referred to by their names. Which was what I was saying about that suggestion of yours. I'm not entirely sure why this question has come up?

but is it any more relevant and useful than inserting skin color into the conversation of a mixed group? — Joshs

Oh, yes, obviously. Men and women have on average very different experiences of hte world, even if you can conceptualise a socially equal 'treatment'. Though, we're definitely going to be differing on the extent to which we have moved toward that goal.

Of you think it’s silly for individuals to invent their own roles, is it any less silly for an entire culture to impose binary roles? — Joshs

I think that if there are children, and adults - and you're an adult of age 35 - claiming to be a child of age 10 - society has a right to either impose on you the role garnered by your literal status of being 35 (ie, you are not 10). Is age just a convention? Possibly but that seems wrong.
Analogously, if 99% of people can ascertain sex by facial features (seems to be true) and that the other thing, gender, is almost invariate with sex, is 99% of people, who can identify accurately, on sight, 99% of other people's sex and gender, I really dont see the onus as on society. Its on the odd ones out to conform, if they want to take part. This applies to myself in many ways, as I am a very unusual character. I have had to made decisions to step away from certain social activities and institutions because I don't fit in. Nor would I want to. And that's fine. 99% of peple are on their buzz, and I'll be on mine. What I wont do is command, or guilt other people into acquiescing to my odd, and usually somewhat irrational requirements. Likewise, If you're a female, and don't want to be, tough luck. Thats how you were born. Where I live, it is 100% the case you are allowed to be racist to white people in public, and sexist to men. Its awful to deal with. Am I supposed to start making demands from my society to respect my white, and maleness?

Can you see that the origin of the everyday use of he and she goes back to eras when there was a sharon difference in roles between men and women? — Joshs

There really still is. So, one thing I'm not really prepared to debate (at least in this thread) but is something I see as patently true, and sits behind at least some of my takes on this topic is that I think it is not reasonable to think males/females or in typical parlance 'men and women' are the same, or that they would be the same in any circumstances. They are biologically different, on average, in significant ways and require different things from the world, and provide different things to the world. That this is the case seems inarguable to me, and so attempting to minize the aspects that make people what they are seems odd to me, and counter to reality. Knowing whether someone is female will alter the way i speak with them, in light of what I can assume their experience has been in a world where females, on average, experience certain positives and certain negatives and male, a differing (and, obviously - though again, we'll disagree in degree - disproportionate) set of those.

If you don' think the above is reasonable, we're living in two different worlds and it may be that we're not able to aptly discuss the issues. To be clear, in this specific case I am decrying the ridiculous demand that i refer to you as a member of some group you've invented to represent some imaginary grouping, which includes only you,,,on some indeterminate set of personality properties. Just tell me your fucking name.

Is the experience (G) different to the perception? Some might say that perception refers to our sensory experience of the worl — Luke

That's true, some might say that. But it makes no sense to me... If that's the 'ordinary usage' of those words (which, I don't think it is) they don't work for their purpose.

Perception isn't in the same category as G. It is hte set of A-B-C-D-..G as a process, to my mind.

And yet you seem to be completely incapable of saying why I am wrong. — Janus

You had the option to quote where I pointed out the reason for this statement. But you did not :)

you seem to be saying that colours and seeing colours are the same thing. — Janus

I would have thought it clear i was using your term here, hence the inverteds. What you term 'seeing colour' is, on my account, the experience of the visual sensation of xyx tone/hue combination. So, i'm happy to use your terms while talking to you, but describe my account if you see what I mean. But i understand the confusion nevertehless.

However, the part of the process that is prior to awareness seems irrelevant to the question of whether we see things or merely representations of things. Of course, we can say either and there is no matter of fact there but just different interpretations. — Janus

While I think the latter portion of this is a good way forward, generally, the former seems wrong to me. It definitely is irrelevant to me in practice, even on a totally Indirect account. I don't think thats what's being claimed, though. It's important insofar as it is the indirect cause of sensation (it, being whatever objects or set of objects, or plenum, one interacts with in the world). I think it's a litle hard to jettison that from the discussion. On most accounts, with out it, we get no sensation to be discussed as direct or indirect.

Do you think that the umbrella of transgender can include within it a notion of gender not tied to any knowledge of biological sex? For instance, those who believe that everyone has their own unique gender, just as everyone has their own personality dispositions. — Joshs

As noted earlier, this is pretty silly. You're describing the function of names. People are allowed to choose their own names.

I caution against despairaging anyone here for their view — Philosophim

I agree with this. I avoided doing so. His view is his view. His method of defending is a bit of a game. But also, you may not agree that's the case. I let you know how i felt, and I note you took that on board as well :)


However, as I read through your comments to others, i'd like to offer a caution back: Stop intermingling 'male/female' with gender language. Sex is immutable - you're correct. And even if there some "other categories" or something, male and female obviously refer to sex - and given your OP, it seems to be hampering your efforts to clearly enunciate what your meaning is.

I really respect your responses to Joshs. Wanted to throw that out. He's playing a game, and you're not biting. It's great to see.

or some combination thereof, but because their gender is idiosyncratic and outside of the familiar categories. — Joshs

Hmm. Your account seems to suggest, as I would argue, and have done elsewhere, that the concept of being 'transgender' is actually twofold:

In one case, it's an individual claiming to be another gender. I.e, "I am a woman". They are identifying with an existing member of a binary. So, in those cases, I think we are right to say they are either correct or incorrect about what they actually are. Otherwise, calling yourself a woman means literally zero.. But, this leads me to scenario 2...
In this scenario, the person is claiming some identity other than man/woman simply because they think those labels are restrictive. The patent fact is they are not restrictive in traditional uses - no one thinks a woman in a suit is a man, or a man who cries at movies is a woman - the idea is that they are less effective members of their grouping in the binary. So, people who want to escape what they perceive as a restrictive label are attempting to invent a special identity that encompasses only their exact (current) psychological traits. To me, this is absurd in the sense that it makes the concept of 'gender' exactly the same as giving somoene a name, and then using hte name to refer to them. If you want 'other genders' they must be defined, to have any meaning.
So, if, and your account seems to take this as true, "gendered language" is constantly evolving to allow for infinite identities, we're talking about people naming themselves in contrast to everyone else. I have no problem saying that someone who is doing this is narcissistic and domineering.

There's also the fact that, on an account where gender is 1:1 tied to sex (lets, for a moment, accept that conception) - people whiney about not wanting to be in either group can just keep it to themselves. They are wrong, and its not encumbent on society to allow for people's grandiose self-image. That is nto my take, but it illustrates something that I think people are afraid of saying to avoid some kind of backlash. Which is cowardly, if the above were true and just as JS Mill rightly pointed out 200 years ago - social/public opinion is one of the strongest forms of oppression. The absolute shitshow of talking about trans issues in public is an extremely good reason to think opinions are stymied.

I believe people should be the gender they consider themselves to be. — Tom Storm

I'm trying to understand your position by posing questions to you that your position entails an answer to... Why does not extend to teh age, race, weight and height one 'considers' themselves to be? This exact logic is why 'adult babies' are a thing. I would assume you note the patent mental arrest involved in that notion? Why do you not apply the same logic to people who are, lets say, unique in their aberrant (socially speaking) perception of themselves? It just seems like you'v enot thought about htis at all, and rely on compassion for a position that has much, much deep implications than "i don't like to upset people"

I treat people as it seems reasonable to do so. If someone is commanding me to refer to them as female when they are patently male (and, in the two specific circumstances I'm recalling - aggressive and mildly violent about it) I'm not doing that. You can go fuck yourself. You are ill.
If someone politely lets me know that they prefer to be called x I have no problem with it. How one wants to be referred to is literally no moment for anyone but them. How they identify matters to everyone around them. And for this reason, your position seems to me obviously lacking in further considerations thank "Hi, I like to be refered to as 'she''

a perception because nothing is being perceived. — Janus

DO you not see the patent ridiculousness of the dual use of 'perception' yet?

My position is that there is not a thing "sex" that is or isn't binary, nor do I want there to be. — unenlightened

Thank you for clarifying

It appears to me both are still apt - (this is merely 'a take' from myself, not an intended outright claim)..morality is what one believes about how to act, and Ethics is the framework which leads one there. In this way, morality is general, and Ethics can be context-bound (business ethics, procreative ethics etc...). Still, behaviours there are moral - but informed by the, usually somewhat formalized, Ethical system informing it.

You being wrong has nought to do with me, my dude. There are two sexes, and all intersex people fit into those two categories. Further complicating it for yourself is up to you.

So for me I can infinitely understand other people greater than you can. — Vaskane

hehe. Keep it up!

But from one hominem to another, I have a point, no? Did you form your opinion by reading Foucault’s texts or listening to your prof? Btw, what do you think of Thomas Kuhn’s view of how science works? — Joshs

To begin, I didn't make one. Foucault isn't a scientist or an expert on sex development, so I approached his work with that in mind. It is lacking. If i impugned your position, it was to do with your reliance on a single person (as presented - I take it for granted thats not hte extent of your position, heh). A quip, if you will, with no comment on you personally.

But, with that, no, I don't think you did. Pointing out that 'Foucault has some insights for you' isn't really a point, in this sense anyway. Its just a suggestion i read a writer. Which is fine. I replied with my position on that writer. No sure where there's an issue.

It appears you two are under the impression that facts don't exist, or that fallacies don't occur? An odd way to get out of the weird holes you're in, intellectually. Ah well.

Yeah, I would also rather call it a condition rather than a "mental disorder." — BitconnectCarlos

This was the point i made earlier, duly ignored. It is a mental condition, whether or not you consider it aberrant, an illness or anything else - it's a condition of the mind. And apparently, a somewhat unique one.
I also, though, have no problem calling someone who literally believes they are, or can become, the opposite sex, mentally ill. I don't see any issue with that. The way you deal with the individual can't be that, though.


Is your position that sex, per se, is not a binary, or that it varies independently of biology? Not a loaded question, I just can't understand where you place yourself... some of waht you're saying seems to support a position as above, and some appears to be pushing toward a clear-cut notion of sex as definite, but somewhat unimportant.

they are all male or female, as pointed out.

There are two sexes into which every single human fits neatly. If they don’t fit your definitions, thats an issue for you.