Yes, I know Helen (personally, in a very vague way).
Yeah, i get the point too but I'm unsure what else you could say besides "trans-identified male" which seems cumbersome, if not kind of a dick move.

that it is a prime influence on Islam; Absolute Submission. — Banno

It is. And explicitly so.

This seems muddled and not asking anything in particular??

Politics didn't need to address this issue until the last five years or so. And it has been relatively clear that most bodies want "male" and "female" to be defined classes with a range of attributes that are biologically typical. So far, so simple.

Why might this matter? Sports, healthcare, legal protections incl. relationship imbalance, workplace harrassment, privacy laws, certain crimes are sex-specific and much else besides. Much of society is informed, fundamentally, by the sex engaging in a given activity. This is basis for most political theorizing around resource, power and social justice. Males and females are different. How do we account for, and equivocate that?

That is a clear answer. Have I missed something in the question?

I think, more than most cases, I'm OK to ask what your motivation for asking is?

Three reasons:

1. super loaded;
2. I've not said I don't/wouldn't;
3. I have said that in at least half of any given instances, it is socially incumbent to do so.

ou responded: — Leontiskos

To the fictional quotation. In that context that is the right way to think about a moral judgement. I am unsure that you could say i've agreed to the moral judgement being made. No, I don't mean on the facts - I mean, i would not take it as given that the conception in that quote is a moral judgement. In the event, I do think it is - so, I've probably just been unnecessarily confusing in this part of the exchange. To be clear: I think that is the right way to think about moral judgement in the context of dismissal - I am unsure a moral judgement is occurring in the quote.

Yes, I think computation involves judgment. If I give you a math problem you will require judgment in order to solve it. — Leontiskos

That would include machines 'judging'. That does not currently seem at all open to us.

Whether rubric or schedule, I think both involve judgments. It's just that they involve simple or relatively easy judgments. — Leontiskos

I would not want to say that recognition alone (which a schedule requires, and naught else) is judgement. Perhaps I need a better 'version' of 'judgement' to support this. But it seems to be pretty obviously the case that machines do not judge in the way we want to say humans do (or, higher animals in general). It may be that an adequate definition of judgement has to include literally ever act (given every act is a version of "this/that".

For example, the judgment of whether this street is 22nd street. — Leontiskos

No, that's not up to me. Either when i get there there's a 1:1 match between you directions and my location, or there is not. I do not judge whether that is the case - it either is or isn't and I observe which it is. However, that analogy doesn't hold with my point - if you gave me an active, working Google Maps. I closed my eyes, followed the directions(pretend for a moment this wouldn't be practically disastrous lmao) and then the Maps tells me i've arrived - that's what I'm talking about. I am literally not involved in any deliberation - I am, in fact, still taking instruction. It would have been a judgement whether to actually engage this course of action, though, to be sure.

Just so. :)

I think those were at different times? I think he was also under the impression some other commenters gave evidence - but I had put paid to. I'm unsure I see an issue there... I often contradict myself pre- and post-information assimilation :) But yeah, contradiction isn't good without expressing the mental change that's occurred. Maybe he can do so...

Are you suggesting there's something untoward about adjusting one's view in light of discussion or evidence? It seems that way, so if something else is in question please be clearer...

We are judging an action or behavior, and we agreed that such a judgment is a moral judgment — Leontiskos

No we haven't. Your quoted exchange (assuming I agreed) doesn't show this. It shows that a "moral dismissal" results from a "moral judgement". That moral judgement is not assessed.

Then give your definition of 'judgment.' It seems to me that looking at the rubric and determining which answer is correct will require a judgment, namely judging which answer is correct — Leontiskos

Then computation is judgement. I reject this. Deliberation is judgement (assuming it results in something). Marking the exam without a set rubric (i.e I must know hte answers and judge whether student has gotten it right) would be this.

it seems ad hoc to exclude the judgment of the comedian from being a moral judgment — Leontiskos

This could be right, ubt I'd have to review the discussion and I'm not in place to do so right now. I cannot remember exactly what I excluded there.

If you need a 10-foot pipe and you examine two possible candidates, you are inevitably involved in judgments, no? — Leontiskos

Perhaps I should have used the term 'schedule'. An actual, written schedule of right responses.

the majority of scientists state that there are more than two sexes — Wolfy48

No they fucking don't. There has never been a single sex other than male and female suggested. Even by activists.

And how does banning trans people from bathrooms accomplish preventing sexual assault? — Wolfy48

the prohibition is justified to reduce risk — AmadeusD

It seems you cannot read. I'm out.

omfg, I just responded to every point and it looks like the post has entirely disappeared. I apologise for that.

And yet you use the fact that men are on average more likely to commit a sexual crime, even though it is a very small part of the population that does so, to justify how NO ONE born male can be trusted in a women's bathroom. — Wolfy48

No. This is an incredibly straw man.

I would add, though, that it is not as small-a-portion of the population as you seem to want it to be. That isn't the point. When it's always males, the prohibition is justified to reduce risk. We cannot, post-hoc, prevent harm.

I have read through your source, and no where does it say that trans women are 4 times more likely to commit a sexual crime than a cis man — Wolfy48

You can look at the discussion given. And it does - you may want to actually look at the statistics. Compare them with control groups (the general population). 0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women.

Aside from the incorrect ambiguity in the opening, yes, 100%. But that doesn't say anything about policy. What 'society thinks' amounts to convention. Policy is a bit different, so best prize those apart.

No one dodged it. You are ignoring all the evidence, including neurological evidence, that was put in front of you. Don't be surprised if you're ignored.

Outlander makes a reasonable retort, but it wouldn't have been mine.

As for the challenge, it is case by case, as several references on that page attest. Particularly [7], [8], and [9].

Another telling line, which could apply to definitions I am not using: "There have been no reported cases of both gonads being functional in the same person, the functional tissue is usually the ovarian tissue.[10]"

If they have active SRY, they are male. IN a female, there is no SRY active in/on any cells. That some cells do not express this in males is a genetic aberration occurring during differentiation. This is spelled out clearly on Wiki page, and is what I have repeated perhaps eight or nine times now. I cannot see this as more than you ignoring the point, if you continually bring up the same point which has been addressed several times. No offense meant, but I will ignore this same argument going forward. If you disagree with my responses, that's fine - but you're arguing as if I haven't put a nice lid on it, from my side of things. We may simply want to use different benchmarks to define "male" and "female" - the issue for me, is your use is ambiguous, unhelpful and essentially useless. As I'd like to use them, they are definite and always applicable.

If you wish to say such baseless and horrible things, please cite a source or actually read what you're quoting — Wolfy48

I have provided full statistics and a discussion on them earlier in this thread. You can look back if you want to. Perhaps have a look at previous pages before jumping in like this :) It is also good practice to do a bit more of a look that at the things you already take to be the case.

But saying that all males, or even most males, harm females is just blatantly sexist and wrong. — Wolfy48

If you could point out where this was even vague intimated, that would be helpful. But misreadings of this kind will not be addressed for very long. To be incredibly clear: I am 100% a "not all men" person. But it is, almost always, males. That's the point - not that all males are abusers. Try not to take it personally.

I said males harm females. They do. It is the overwhelming direction of harm among humans. The only comparable set is females-> children and it pales in that comparison.

I think the issue with women's bathrooms is that they are supposed to be for all women — Wolfy48

/

No, they are (and have always been) for females. The change occurred when 'woman' no longer referred exclusively to females. That's fine, but the point stands in terms of sorting out why there's such a furor over it.

Sexual assault is not a valid concern for this, as if someone is already so messed up as to commit sexual assault against an innocent, why would saying "you can't go in here" stop them? — Wolfy48

Speculative bollocks. Plenty of examples of trans people assaulting women in bathrooms (i've provided plenty in the thread, and I've not done anything close to an exhaustive look at that issue - just enough to understand it is an issue). But this also applies to changing rooms where females have the right to not be seen in the nick by males. This has nothing to do with 'risk'. It is their right. It has been since civilised society has been self-reflective in any real way. Rape crisis shelters are another extremely good example. Things like this prove there is an issue. This is sexual assault. Willing to throw even a single female under the bus for the feelings of males who are (in at least some sense disconnected from reality is not something I would morally entertain, personally. Given we have evidence of far more than one female suffering in this way, I'm good.

I would like to see a source on this. — Wolfy48

Also provided earlier. Here you go. Note specifically the opening lines, and the references therein. You may need to find htose other articles, so I apologise for that.

I would argue... — Wolfy48

argument is understood, but is wrong. Having a penis isn't hte benchmark. And it is totally reasonable to take genetic markers as indicative of typical behaviour. We do this for all animals. It gets overdone, for sure, and eventually is plain bigotry so point is taken, nonetheless.

Choosing to comport and express yourself as a woman is what makes you a woman. — Wolfy48

This is, sorry to say, complete nonsense. What are you comporting or expressing yourself as?
"a woman"
What is "a woman"?
Someone who chooses to comport and express themselves as a woman.

Absolute nonsense.

It is being used to show that even using a purely scientific definition (which to many, is wrong), the two-gender mindset isn't accurate. — Wolfy48

But that is factually wrong. This has been gone over. If you don't take a scientific definition of sex seriously, there's not a lot to talk about. That's part of the problem - it is not theoretically ambiguous at all.

Thanks for the first card you put on the table now can I get the other 51? — substantivalism

Truly don't know what you're saying here. If you could remove the metaphor I'd appreciate it.

I will no longer state all individuals are either male or female. Some are mosaic 46,XX/46 XY — Malcolm Parry

They are male or female. I have responded to Michael on this, harking back to plenty of further support I've given earlier in the thread.

Does this imply anything different from how we treat other people, how public policy treats them differently — substantivalism

An awkward question. It didn't seem to until about 10 years ago, no. It does seem to now - but that's because people are denying it.

The law and public policy demand no vagueness. Start writing and start defending. — substantivalism

No. Most laws are vague and require several years (sometimes decades) of case law to figure out what's really going on. Sometimes judges admonish the legislature for this reason. Many laws Icannot be adequately particularised. So, i wont engage that particular charge.

That way nature can take its proper course. — substantivalism

I can't tell if you're being facetious here. You have taken something I said and suggested something I didn't comes along with it. If that's your view, I disagree with it.

It's in being proactive and preventative that the true difficulty lies. That is where true societal growth can be had. — substantivalism

No. This is the entire premise of the side of this issue I am on. Preventative measures to avoid the inevitable abuse females will face when more males are in their intimate spaces (empirically wrong or right, I'm just saying that's the line of thinking).

Take true hermaphroditism — Michael

A misleading term which refers to something that isn't real. There are zero humans who are not male or female. Your quotes discuss aberrant phenotype only. That does not determine sex, it differentiates it. I am becoming less able to continually repeat these things as I gave sources for these claims earlier.

this suggests that the condition is the result of constitutive activation of a gene normally triggered by SRY.

This makes it extremely clear what we're talking about. Males, or females. Again, these aren't my ideas - these are what the sources given tell us.

Perceived risk isn't real risk. — fdrake

Cool. Then given the risk of 'a man' assaulting a woman is something like 5/100 - no more gendered spaces. Yay! Murders can have guns. Drug users can have access to their drugs without oversight. Yay!
Obviously this is facetious, but its a true illustration of the disrespect of this retort to female anxiety about males.

and I showed you a meta analysis which refutes the claim. — fdrake

You did not, as gone over in previous comment/s. Children probably engage in personal violence with family members more than any other group but..... What would we say here??? There is no fucking risk.

I imagine your only argument here would be to say that poker or chess are not 'sports'? Or are you in favour of men only poker and women only poker? — I like sushi

My argument here is: They are delineated. There seems to be inherent differences in abilities between these two groups, in those areas. I don't think a female has ever made it to the final table of the World Series of Poker and there is a 21/1000 ratio of female to male grandmasters in Chess. I don't have a view on this issue because there is no risk to life or limb - but males competing in female poker tournaments are clearly at an advantage. I make no further on that.

suggestion that the terms "biological male" and "biological female" each describe some unambiguous and mutually exclusive biological property that every human has shows a misunderstanding of both biology and language — Michael

No. It is an actual fact. Intersex is misleading and describes a variation in phenotype only. I have very clearly been over this. It is simply not an argument in fabour of your position - it is erroneous.

I guess you are too young to have experienced the rigidity of gender norms that used to prevail. — unenlightened

No, not at all. When I was young 'fairy' was still a social-life-ending epithet. You have not engaged my question, though. If you truly think there were swathes of people unable to tell you from a female because you had long hair, I'm not interested in conversing further. If you're willing to accept that a feigned confusion to support bigotry was the go, we're good.

as if visual contact were dangerous. — unenlightened

It seems, contrary to your rather glib and silly parenthesis, that this is the case. Where people are found in more states of undress, more assaults occur (the home, particularly). But this isn't all that relevant so happy to say sure - and leave it.

If we want everyone to know our sex, why hide the parts that distinguish it most clearly? — unenlightened

Humans are 93+% accurate at telling sex from face alone. This is a non-argument.

A trans-woman child abuser is likely to be murdered in a men's medium security prison — frank

Fixed it. All good.

I get the feeling there are more comments to add, so I apologise for what might be a triple post here.

The argument roughly goes that the trans woman appears as a man to attendees and is thus unsafe. Which isn't really an argument, but I'm not going to convince you of that. — fdrake

It is, though. This is a really well-known phenomenon, to the point that males are routinely excluded from crisis shelters (even children of the victim, if over the age of I think seven where I live). The reason is because the risk of causing further trauma, or at least curtailing rehabilitation, is far, far more weighty than the possibility a male is going to get a bit upset about being excluded from a female safe space. The point here is that the female part does the lifting. Violating this isn't something males have open to them, without force. It is for the in-group to decide. I don't think that's at all controversial (and in this case, it seems empirically reasonable).

misleading — fdrake

I would go ahead and ask all of your female network their views on IPV, and the roles of males in the wider picture. I think you'll get some pretty stark responses (I also note flipping between academic record, and personal anecdote/story-telling might be making this harder for us. I think we're both doing that).

one or more acts of physical aggression

Let me know what acts are considered under this head. I imagine the study, and not the claim, is misleading for this reason. A more telling study would be this one. Even taking your point (incl. references) as wholesale reliable, and accurate this further consideration makes it pale and unhelpful in context.

Again, transwomen are four times more likely to commit a sex crime, and I'm happy to egregiously calibrate for benefit-of-the-doubt to two times more likely. Fully two times more likely to commit a sex crime than non-trans males. This is an insurmountable obstacle to those who would claim either parity in risk, or a claim that transwomen are somehow magically female in behavioural trends. I again, also mention, plenty of trans people recognize this/these issues. They are sick and tired of people talking for them by either prevaricating or lying about what's going on in their community. They want acceptance, and the complete inability for social groups. I am willing to take them at face value, given that the other side of the coin is invariably (in my personal experience) aggressive, unwilling to even listen, sometimes violent and massively misogynistic. I tend to take the less-hysterical of the two sides more seriously - particularly when some empirical considerations fall to that side and it is, on any account, possibly to see "being trans" as a mental illness (dysphoria - not a moral claim). I don't think there's anything wrong with that. My experiences support the data that I am aware of (and the view of females in my orbit besides three I can name - one of which is severely mentally ill). I simply don't have anything to go on which would lead me to conclusions such as yours.

Furries are not able to compete in dog shows. No idea why self-ID is allowed to violate categories in humans, but not among dogs.

Notice that this doesn't imply anything about whether trans women should be able to attend domestic abuse support groups... — fdrake

Because there is no controlling data in involved. Bit of a non sequitur. Nevertheless, I can see the point trying to be made. They are all female. Trans women are male. Males carry certain patterns of behaviour , unless we're going to either shirk evolution or pretend that 'soul's exist giving rise to the 'wrong body' nonsense. Being female inherently reduces the risk of harm. Intimate partner 'violence' may be relatively even - but intimate partner harm is immensely skewed in one direction. This is inarguable. There is no epidemic of wives killing their husbands.

Males harm females. That is almost a truism of humans. Historically, currently and there is no obvious end to it. Trans women are male.

I see no need to go further... (other than acknowledging the equally sound point made by the two comments after your reply that IPV by females is almost exclusively in response to abuse).

An opportunity to make a very clear point though:

But I'd argue that there is a difference between the sex you are born as and the gender you identify as — Wolfy48

I agree. But gender doesn't dictate much of anything in day-to-day life. Sex does. It is just the muddling of terms to service a mental state that has lead to any of hte current controversy. Just don't do that.. feelings, particularly male feelings, aren't arguments. I am not particularly concerned with how upset a male gets for not being allowed into female spaces. I simply don't care. That is just something you'll need to suck up. I'm not allowed into women's changing rooms either. Difference is, I don't want to. This is now getting into personal 'gripe' area, but there seems a trend among TRAs that they need to be in womens bathrooms. If the issue is that you need to be affirmed, that's not something you can put on someone else. If the issue is you're worried about being unsafe in male spaces, go to neutral spaces. If you require women's spaces you have a hidden motive (well, no - but it certainly isn't safety if you require something more than a safer space).

I think most people sees that. — Christoffer

Perhaps you should focus on yourself. It seems a lack of this has resulted in talking past me, constantly, for a year now.

I’ve argued this point numerous times, to no avail. — NOS4A2

This may tell you something about your argument, then. If all and sundry are rejecting it for being both impractical, and logically weird (not a knock-down, to be sure) you might want to rethink it. Either you think crimes constituted by speech are not crimes (fraud, perjury, incitement, contract evasion and several other kinds besides) should never been curtailed by law.....

.... or you think they should.

@Fire Ologist :ok:

I think the incidence isn't particularly relevant for exclusion, honestly. The argument roughly goes that the trans woman appears as a man to attendees and is thus unsafe. — fdrake

And thus presents a risk. I still get the impression you are dismissing women and instead choosing to value to feelings of a mentally aberrant male (which must be hte case to be askance from the physical reality in which you live). The facts give us plenty of reason to exclude and thats exactly why we already do it, Claiming to be a women can't change you being male, so there's actually nothing to be talked about, if you agree males should be separated from females in intimate spaces, generally. If you don't - wow man, that's absolutely horrendous

For outcome: — fdrake

You skipped to this didn't you? Have a look at relative harms, in that analysis. Hehe. It is utterly preposterous to pretend males and females are on similar footing as regards IPV. That paper shows it. The conclusion is nominal.

Probably the most pressing matter - strangely not discussed - is that of employment and persons being passed over simply because they are trans. — I like sushi

No it's not. They are protected from this in Law in almost every country that it matters.

is that there is clearly a difficulty in knowing where to draw the line. — I like sushi

No there isn't. Male/female. That's the line.It is the only fair, and universal one. Women in women sports know what they're signing up for competing against women. Don't violate that, and you're good.

Until then we just have to discuss and hope we can come to some better understanding. — I like sushi

Why not hope that people who have a mental state incongruent with reality are supported in reassessing that mental state to align with reality and thus ameliorate the suffering?
If that's not hte aim, you must think people are born in the wrong body. I would like to know how, but I think that's a cruel joke of a position.

That's certainly the rub. I can't think of any way other than an appeal to collective preferences. What, in the West, we consider a criminal gang is not that way framed in say the Mid East or North Africa.

Why do you think that the adjectives "male" and "female" properly refer only to the status of the SRY gene and not chromosomal sex or phenotypic sex? — Michael

They are descriptions, not adjectives, when we are defining sex, as opposed to differentiating. It is not a "quality" of a male to be male eg (tautology).
Male and Female are adjectives when applied to phenotype (because we're saying "masculine" and "feminine" but taking a short-cut), though. Maybe not adequately prizing this apart is hurting our discussion. I will try to be clear when I use each in my response.

Our disagreement has nothing to do with biology, but about the meaning of the adjectives "male" and "female". — Michael

If you think this, I don't think you're adequately participating. Your problem is that "sex" is not binary, but it is. I have shown that it is (well, as far as I need be satisfied anyway. I'm sure there are objections available, but I've canvassed all that have come my way). If this is not the case, most of what you've said seems superfluous and possibly disingenuous? I don't think that, I'm just trying to ascertain whether this claim (that i've quoted immediately above) is actually the case. I will try to answer to both issues...

Male and Female are adjectives when applied to phenotype, and actually standing in for "masculine" and "feminine". That allows a relatively (though, not properly) large grey area as to what traits fall into what bucket (physical, psychological or behavioural i suppose. A perception thing, anyway).
The use of "male" and "female" as reproductive terms is descriptive and not adjective in the way you are saying. "male" and "female" do not admit of degrees, in this context. They either are, or aren't (though ,the whole point is if not 1, then 2 (and no 0s)). When we speak descriptively about, let's say, facial features we can say "That face is a bit more male than this one" and be making sense because we actually mean to say "more masculine" (you can tell, because we say this often when we know the sex, and our expectation has been violated (Statue of Liberty for instance)).
We cannot say "this organism is a bit more male than this one" and be making sense, because there is no degree we could admit under that description.
This may sort out the whole thing. But assuming not.. onward...

I put it to you that if there is an alien species that is phenotypically indistinguishable from humans, such as Kryptonians in fiction, but with different chromosomes and DNA, then the adjective "male" in the phrase "male human" means the same thing as the adjective "male" in the phrase "male Kryptonian". — Michael

Rejected, wholesale with a bit of a smirk. We could not call them 'male' unless we understood their reproductive system and could find an analogous place for their counterparts as we have in 'males" and "females". This is because:

phenotype is the most immediate determinant of how the adjectives "male" and "female" are ordinarily used — Michael

Disagreed, quite strongly. I think this might be hte case in small slivers of "woke" demographics and the like, but this is absolutely not what is generally understood by those words. We definitely fall back on the heuristic of "looks like a duck, walks like a duck" because we are so incredibly accurate at assessing sex on-sight (more than 93%, it seems). But that is not what we mean. We we mean is that we have assessed the phenotype and assume, via statistical analysis, that this person is "a male" or "a female". We are not, almost ever, saying something akin to "This person's appearance is male" because that makes absolutely no sense. Either, they are male and their appearances adheres, or it is deviant and we need a further assessment to understand whether A. we care, and B. we can know their sex from appearances.

the "male" chromosome pair (or the SRY gene) is only described as being male because it is the most common cause of a male phenotype. — Michael

I cannot understand that this isn't a bit of satire? I am really, truly not trying to be rude. This seems Monty Python-esque. We call the phenotype male because it is the typical response to SRY-activation in gestation. It is an observational term. We didn't assign it (well, we did in the sense of 'invent the word', but the place it was assigned existed and we just named that place "male"). The same way we didn't "assign" "Lion". It describes something stable and "true".

Tennis? Maybe no difference — fdrake

Serena Williams has some extremely strong words for you. Extremely. (this is true, but I mean to make light.. not start a fight).

Domestic abuse support groups - mix them up. Regardless of the other considerations, these are supervised group sessions of non-criminals, there's about the same risk to anyone as going to a cafe. I don't see a good argument for excluding trans peeps from these especially when they have a GRC. — fdrake

Domestic abuse is overwhelmingly perpetrated by males. Males cause trauma to those who have been abused by males. It doesn't matter what you think yourself as, or whether you have a piece of paper saying X. You are male. That is dangerous for females who have been abused by males.

That doesn't cover everything, but is, I think, a substantial counter point.

I'd probably want someone who has a GRC to get a choice of which gender prison they go to. — fdrake

That's fucking wild. Convicted criminals shouldn't (and really, do not) get hte privilege of choosing their incarceration terms. You do not, as a convicted criminal (particularly when the majority seem to be sex crimes (we've been there - I know your position. this is mine)), get to tell others where you're going to serve your term. That is absolutely beyond the pale as far as i'm concerned. There's a reason Isla Bryson was removed.

Even then I don't think this one would matter much for domestic abuse support groups. — fdrake

I think you maybe don't take that issue as seriously as you should. Would you views change if the issue was a domestic abuse shelter or a rape crisis shelter? Please answer, as there are several very interesting follow-ups I'd like to pry into here.

that should also apply to women who provide such risks — fdrake

The difference in ratio of males and females who present this risk vastly outweighs an appeal to logical consistency. Your point is taken, but as with sports, women involved have signed up to be involved with women(read: females). Males, and their inherent risk profile are not within that scope and so present an unfair risk rather than a risk that is taken by being a female criminal. Does that maybe clarify at least what the argument is?

there is something uniquely risky about trans women — fdrake

There is. Whether this is just that there's a 'unknown" aspect, or whether it is the empirical fact that they are more likely to commit a sex crime than even non-trans males, there is. This is an unavoidable issue on the facts. What we do about it is where the conversation starts. I think this is what frustrates most attempts to come to terms. At least admit hte bloody facts and we can get on with it... sort of thing.

is already subject to social condemnation, revulsion and hatred — unenlightened

Sorry about the glibness - but what are you talking about here? Truly don't get it. Are you saying that anyone who doesn't fit typical physical appearance suffers hate? That seems... an extreme overstatement (that is not to say it doesn't occur, at all).

I apologise, it was a bit pointed. — unenlightened

No need! It was funny :)

The UK law in effect forces such people into places where that hatred and revulsion will be worst. — unenlightened

Nope.

meant they couldn't tell if I was a boy or a girl — unenlightened

Do you truly think this is what was being said? Or was this used as hyperbole to represent an arbitrary dissatisfaction with your long hair? Because, I can tell you, long hair does not change one's ability to assess sex. That is .... bizarre to claim.

"If you can't tell, it is none of your business." I still maintain that. — unenlightened

And this is why I ask the above: for trans people, I have never met a trans person who 'passes'. I've even delved into the internet culture of passing, and I have never been 'got' by someone 'passing'. Granted, that's a situation of scrutiny - which generally wont happen in the real world. But heres the thing: under these laws, if you pass, no one will ask, and you can get on with it. So, that's perfect. But if you don't, then it's not your choice.

To the extreme that defecation has to be done in secret behind a locked door alone. As though pulling one's pants down made one sexually irresistible??? — unenlightened

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason for privacy in ablutions is to avoid rape during ablutions? Hygiene is the largest motivating factor, as was the development of private plumbing and the general rise in quality of private homes (thus, not requiring one to perambulate to take a piss cleanly).

It is rather odd that society mandates the covering up of the sex, but then turns that same covering into a conventional display of it as gender — unenlightened

I don't think it's odd at all. 98% of people identify strongly with their sex, and so express that. There is far, far, FAR less oppression and pressure involved in gender presentation, than is currently assumed by activist groups. The areas of the world which have been left the most alone in terms of forcing gender roles (though, a further comment someone pooh-poohs this) have resulted in larger differences between genders. That said, those societies (Scandinavian, generally) actually enforce female representation in many ways. I think that's wrong, but ignoring my stance that clearly shows that social pressure around sex and gender is fine, if you agree with it.

Seems sort of vague. — substantivalism

I don't think so. It might be in terms of predictive power, but every person knows what those two benchmarks are for themselves. Even "norms" differ from person to person within a society.

sorties series of conflict percentages and when it gets high enough to actually warrant said action. — substantivalism

I assume you mean sorities - this isn't relevant. My previous comment should clear that up. The "vagueness" is somewhat baked-in to the concept because "other minds" can't be read.

However, that 'widely condemned' thing you just noted works as a double edged sword and pushes potential offenders underground so they cannot get the treatment they require. In cases of extreme anti-social disorders or pedophilia they are bound to offend in some cases sooner or later unless treated — substantivalism

I want to be careful how I address this, because in some sense I hear, and agree with this - but is this a Tachellesque appeal to empathy for people who fuck kids? Cause, no bro. That said, the bolded is an extremely good point for other reasons: I want to know who my local sex offenders are. When we can't tell who is who, we should be:

Reducing the number of POTENTIAL offenders — substantivalism

So, it may be we agree entirely.

Do you see the tremendous social/cultural task before us now? — substantivalism

I'm not sure you finished your previous thought, but I am a pro-legalization of all non-medically-developed drugs basically. Recreational drugs being legal would let us seek help, provide help and approach produces much more readily.
This is not in any way analogous to the issues before us here.

In the context of applying the fundamental laws, the phrases tell us the same thing. That's theory, not practice — Metaphysician Undercover

I have explicitly pointed out why this is not the case. The speak about two different things, so could not, in theory, tell us hte same thing. In practice they do. If you don't agree, fine. I cannot understand how. We need not labour htis further. I understood what you were saying, responded in kind. I don't see furthering the discussion happening..

you have to make an actual counter-argument. — Christoffer

I ... umm... did. There is no paradox about speech and I gave the argument. I am sorry that this isn't landing.

This is not a forum where you just say "I disagree" and leave it at that. — Christoffer

It certainly is. We can do all sorts of things, and this is one of them. I disagree (in this caes, you've either ignored or not groked the argument anyway - but ignoring that..). No more is needed. You can demand it all you want.

What about this is disingenuous? — Christoffer

I can't quite recall exactly what I was responding to there, but the point is that I think Popper is wrong. And patently so. I gave the argument (i will dredge it up at some point).

You seem so triggered by the philosophical discourse around free speech that you are unable to argue outside of whatever group you, yourself, has attached yourself to. — Christoffer

This is so utterly bizarre and childish. I was going to go through both responses, but fuck that lol.

As you were.

I'm unsure why you'd ask.

Coherent preference. That's all we have. Groups do it, and so we have morality. Swings and roundabouts.

"P might be false" means the very same thing as "P might be true" — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, I don't think that's right. The former is about the possible failure and the latter is about the possible success of the proposition (orthogonality!)

I understand what you're saying though, as i noted - they tell us the same thing (in practice).

so how far are we supposed to take it? — substantivalism

To the point that it is helpful, or violates other norms to avoid harm.

I also don't think I'm taking it too far as much as abstracting the reasoning that people use to justify this. — substantivalism

Probably yes, but that will be read as either "too far" or "Strawman". I don't think either is the case, in reality. These are discussions, not podiums for election.

Once you enforce some group as the 'out' and another as the 'in'. . . human shenanigans follow. — substantivalism

But that is what society is, and does, on its face. I can't see that 'society' amounts to much else. I think you're maybe being insufficiently clear that we're talking about visible groups, not just groups. We have plenty of 'out' groups (like rapists) who are widely condemned, often attacked with impugnity etc... for good reasons (to clean up society in some way).

I'm not for legislating, which may be what you're getting at, but I am definitely for individuals having their wits about them and making discriminatory judgments wherever they can, provided they are not arbitrary. I accept the unfortunate reality of this leading to plenty of ill-informed or patently illogical personal discrimination. I take this to be hte price.

the real issue — substantivalism

What's that, to you?

Problem. . . solved? — substantivalism

Often, yes. Avoid each other. You can still be in the same class, but do you best not to interact for your own goods. Seems a reasonable remonstration.

But they say different things... Certain contexts will give us the same information from each, but they mean different things as explicitly set out above. Is that translation of the logic above wrong?

The same way "its not raining" and "its not not raining" do.

Things tell us things in orthogonal ways all the time. A certain smirk might tell me the same thing as a sentence. A statement about the shape of a knife might tell me the same thing as the shape of the smiths anvil etc... Transitivity, I guess, bluntly.

I think you're taking it a bit far. I do not think laws should discourage assimilation.
They should discourage the importing of harmful people. If there is a high percentage of certain crimes carried out by an identifiable group, we do tend to legislate against that potential.

Men are not allowed in women's bathrooms. But this is not to encourage dissent between men and women. It is to prevent conflict, as you note. But using your final example, we could perhaps encourage caution when there are obviously indicators. An obvious indicator would not be a burqa. Far more conversation needed to get that onto any reasonable ground. In principle though, profiling and caution are more than likely the bedrock supports society uses to avoid wholesale intrasocietal conflict.

I think you've got your Ps and Qs a little wrong(that is jest).

As I understand:

"◊P" = P might be true.
"◊¬P" = P might be false.

Which of course, often tell us hte same thing but are do not mean the same thing.

Just jumping in because some of these are issues I've particularly considered - actually, some lead me to getting into philosophy proper rather than pop phil. Apologies, and ignore, if its irritating..

And yes, a non-answer happens to be just as damning (or rather, the equivalent of one) in this particular corner you've painted, by the way. — Outlander

That is something happening inside your head. The Fifth exists to counter this exact erroneous reasoning. I do not htink that's a great argument, but it indicates that refusal to answer a question can only be described by excatly that... refusal to answer. It doesn't import any other assumption (or, shouldn't. The assumptions aren't the refuser's to answer to).

1.do you think there is still systemic racism in this country against blacks? Do you think2. the fact we've never had a woman president is indicative of anything? Do you think the fact that Congress and3. the leadership of Fortune500 companies are disproportionately made up of white males is indicative of anything? — RogueAI

Preface: I refuse, prima facie, to see a disparity and lay it at the feat of bigotry. I need more.

1. No. It seems pretty obviously not the case. Trump throws a spanner, but if he's framing whatever mght actually affect Blacks negatively (seems he's doing the opposite, mostly) as a corrective, it's very hard to not accept that given the argument the other way supporting DEI;

2. Yes. Indicates that there is a lot of historical context to support both:
- Why not many women have become electable (haven't had the chance);
- Why people have a hard time voting for women, generally (unfamiliarity or inapt familiarity such
as a doting or abusive mother).

3. Probably that White Males are closer to masoschists than most black americans. But there's a deeper issue - the havoc wrought by Blacks in their own communities (whether or not the conversation about 'origins' of that havoc occurs and is agreeable) prevents them from systematically terrorizing other communities. White Men seem to have the time and space to do this indiscriminately. So, two layers of "You could be better psychopaths" LMAO. Most women do not want to be top managers because of the absolutely unbearable burden on ones mind, time and energy. I do not think this weird. I think it a fairly normal response to the historical situation in which people have gained, roughly, equality.

And you, a free speech absolutist, say yes, shoot him. Which he does. Should you have been censored? Should you be subject to criminal/civil penalties? — tim wood

Very interested in this, as I have seen compelling versions of an ambulance at the bottom of the hill argument. I noted it earlier in the thread, I think. But I want to know if NOS4A2 is on that page, or whether he thinks that no result of speech acts can be admonishable. I should think that even a free speech absolutist would understand that your speech can cause things to happen.
As example for @NOS4A2 in law, we have "promissory estoppel". This is, essentially, a consequence which is disadvantageous to you, because you siad something that someone else relied on to carry out an action (usually entering a contract, but I digress). Is it your view that this is illegitimate? It is censorship by other means (still by Act, but applies to Lawyers specifically in context of being a lawyer doing law stuff).

Additionally, people like Jim Morrison found literally pursuing death life affirming. I can understand that, and so I can't quite understand the premises here in the same way.

A handful - though, majority are fluid about what they will 'accept' so to speak.
I have an odd relation with a 'sister' of mine.
She was my actual sister's partner from when I was 12 to when I was 26. She is a sister to me. However, about four years ago (after being absent from the country for several years) she decided she is now "they" and Charlie.
No issues with it. I guess my position is that you can't command me to use them. But in most cases, it would be socially decent. When things get argy-bargy i resile entirely from others expectations that I assent to their self image.

I believe that I am better positioned to make ethical decisions if i practice morality. I practice morality by aspiring to virtues. as do others who disagree with me on virtue considerations. the virtues are debatable, the premise is debatable. — Jeremy Murray

Yep. And that makes me extremely uncomfortable. Not that its 'wrong'. Can't quite see what's being got at here..

they are just repeating whatever is the dominant belief system. — Jeremy Murray

This is exactly hte pitfall I am decrying (though, i used a religious basis to illustrate it).

utilitarianism and deontology would prevent that, no? — Jeremy Murray

Sort of. But I am not partial to any of the three systems hereabouts noted.

I misread the poll.

I should've said 'no'. I don't htink they can ever be free from those influences.

But The debate is about the law — unenlightened

Correct. And (if accepted) the fact that biology gives us (at least one) "sex" which is universally applicable and attends to the interesting factors (obviously, transition changes this but I do not htink that legally relevant, for present purposes. A further discussion, to be sure, as indicated by my final lines previously) then we need a pretty damn good reason to move from this obviously legislatable framework, to one which is ambiguous, hard to understand and disparate (in terms of who accepts what premises of the legal framework - people took govts to court over allowing the relaxation of restriction, some are now taking it to court over reversing it). I could certianly have been clearer as to why I found it relevant, though so fair enough. Sorry about that.

Why is it bonkers? — frank

Because it doesn't tell us what we want to know (in the infinitesimal cases it cannot be understood immediately on-sight. Rare indeed). This doesn't even require that I have a position on it, either. It is simply not helpful. Susan Boyle might be caught up by that. Jeffery Starr would likely be (on converse sides to "sex") where there isn't an ambiguity for the person involved. Seems that this would lead to the exact problems the objections of the kind "What, you're going to check genitals at the door?" seem to point out (and reasonably)

Fear of coming on to a ladyboy, perhaps? — unenlightened

Setting aside the clear stab here(it was funny, so fine lol) I am bisexual, and married. LOL. I do not care what people look like, generally. The ambiguity means the rules are irrelevant. There is no restriction, in those cases because anyone can claim an identity and move along expecting you to assent to their self-image. If that seems reasonable, we don't have much ground on which we could talk about it.