You don't believe in the power of propaganda? — Questioner

Of course I do. But "love your neighbor as yourself" is "propaganda" just as much as "kill the witch" is. I'm the one who is arguing that morals are culturally constituted -- they are determined by the mores of society, which are influenced by many cultural factors, one of which can be called "propaganda". The difference between "propaganda" and legitimate moral suasion is mainly that we agree with the legitimate,and decry that with which we disagree as "propaganda".

And linguistics and cognitive science back this up: it's called prototype theory. People have prototypical associations with words. A starling is closer to the prototypical bird than a penguin. Crucially though, both are birds. The tendency towards prototypical association doesn't justify the exclusion of other members of the category. — Jamal

That's correct. Some linguists think language is "structural", others that it is more "analogical" (this latter would involve the "prototypes" you mention). Reverting to P's "woman in the woods", the default image might NOT be someone with xx genes (which are unidentifiable to the naked eye). Instead, it might (like the starling that many children identify as a prototypical bird) be the image of a prototypical women: dressed like a woman, shaped like a woman, with feminine features.

Clearly, some transwomen will fit this image more closely than some women born with xx chromosomes. Only the "structural" (scientific) approach to language defines "woman" as P does.

I think you missed my point that groups of people can be manipulated — Questioner

That's my point, not yours. Morality is culturally constituted. It is "manipulated" by laws, mores, religions, philosophies, novels, poetry and other cultural artifacts. It can be manipulated in a positive or a negative way. You seem to be claiming that empathy and sympathy are biological; negative morals are "manipulated". Huh? Why the one and not the other?

No, I am the authority of good manners. And as I am addressing you with these wishes, you should comply. Don't you want to make a smooth social situation? — Philosophim

Well, you asked for an authority on manners, and I offered one. You don't have to accept her advice, but based on Miss Maner's definition of "rude" such is your behavior. Of course we need not smooth over every social situation -- but using preferred names is not something a rational person "disagrees with". Speech is social, and it is socially and culturally accepted to use preferred names -- but not to agree with everything anyone says.

Now - as to the "gassing of the Jews" during WW2 - that is a big question - At the pinnacle of this movement was one man - Hitler - who was a deviant from the norm - — Questioner

Explaining the Holocaust as the result of one deviant individual is unpersuasive. Hitler was elected, and he didn't personally kill any Jews. Hundreds of thousands of Germans did.

More important, that's beside the point. I was simply using the Holocaust as an example of humans lacking empathy. There are hundreds of other examples: Witch killings, Inquisitions, slavery, communist executions and gulags, etc. etc. etc. All suggest a lack of "biological" empathy.

The video you linked is also unpersuasive. 14-month-old children have learned a lot, and become enculturated. Indeed, you must be familiar with reems of research suggesting that babies who are not cuddled fail to grow, fail to learn empathy or sympathy (sympathy being the better word for what you are getting at then empathy), and are handicapped in other ways.

Seems Kees "went missing" 1955 - never to be seen again. — Questioner

Kees was a poet, a novelist, a musician and film maker. His car was found by the Golden Gate Bridge, and it was assumed he committed suicide -- but he had also talked about disappearing. HIs poems are dark. He's my favorite "beat" poet. .

Here's another. I like the last line in this poem :

The Patient Is Rallying

Difficult to recall an emotion that is dead,
Particularly so among these unbelieved fanfares
And admonitions from a camouflaged sky.

I should have remained burdened with destinations
Perhaps, or stayed quite drunk, or obeyed
The undertaker, who was fairly charming, after all.

Or was there a room like that one, worn
With our whispers, and a great tree blossoming
Outside blue windows, warm rain blowing in the night?

There seems to be some doubt. No doubt, however
Of the chilled and emptied tissues of the mind
--Cold, cold, a great grey winter entering--
Like spines of air, frozen in an ice cube.

By the way, here's a quote from the afore mentioned Miss Manners:

“The emphasis on suiting pronouns to identity has to do with tolerance and acceptance. Therefore, Miss Manners trusts that those who expect these virtues will also practice them. … An apology ought to be enough to establish one’s goodwill when mistaking a name or a pronoun."

Here's what she says about dead-naming:

"Use the name and pronouns a person asks you to use, and politely correct yourself when you slip up. Choosing to repeatedly use the name someone has asked you not to use is considered disrespectful in polite society."

Here's one for a philosophy forum.

Crime Club
by Weldon Kees

No butler, no second maid, no blood upon the stair.
No eccentric aunt, no gardener, no family friend
Smiling among the bric-a-brac and murder.
Only a suburban house with the front door open
And a dog barking at a squirrel, and the cars
Passing. The corpse quite dead. The wife in Florida.

Consider the clues: the potato masher in a vase,
The torn photograph of a Wesleyan basketball team,
Scattered with check stubs in the hall;
The unsent fan letter to Shirley Temple,
The Hoover button on the lapel of the deceased,
The note: "To be killed this way is quite all right with me."

Small wonder that the case remains unsolved,
Or that the sleuth, Le Roux, is now incurably insane,
And sits alone in a white room in a white gown,
Screaming that all the world is mad, that clues
Lead nowhere, or to walls so high their tops cannot be seen;
Screaming all day of war, screaming that nothing can be solved

The point is that all morality comes from our evolution. — Questioner

If you mean the culture "evolves", anyone might agree. If you mean morality is influenced by biological evolution, fine. If, however, you mean that morality is purely biological, that is nonsense. Some moral codes suggest empathy for the oppressed; others suggest gassing the Jews. Are both the result of human biological evolution?

Here's an example from anthropology. The incest taboo is one universal human moral code. Some biology oriented types incorrectly claim it resulted from the greater likelihood of negative recessive traits for children of close relatives. However, in many simple societies (Australian aborigines, for one) one must not marry one's parallel cousin (mother's sister's or father's brother's child) but must marry one's cross cousin (mother's brother's or father's sister's child). The genetic closeness of the cousins is identical. The prohibition seems based on social and economic benefits for the couple and their children. the parallel cousins will be in the same clan as their spouses; the cross cousins in different clans. The marriage will cement economic and social relationships between the clans. Such relationships are clearly "cultural" (other societies may not have clans at all, or may organize them differently). So this form of the one, universal human moral rule seems cultural, not biological.

Everything has failed to create a better world. The world is as it is.

However, there is no point of comparison. We don't know if the world without philosophy would be better or worse.

Because a name is a legally binding identifier for the individual. Why do you think it wouldn't matter? — Philosophim

Plenty of people go by a name that is neither their birth name nor their legal name. A woman I know named "Kathleen" prefers to go by "Kathy". I suppose on legal documents one must use the legal name. In social situations it is best to comply with the addressee's wishes. I don't know why you're so hung up on the law. Who cares about legal names in a social situation?

Who is the authority of these 'Good manners'? — Philosophim

Miss Manners, of course. Why don't write to her column and ask her. I'll bet anything she'll agree with me.

"Their" indicates ownership and can also be singular or plural. — Philosophim

Only in the same modern, politically correct grammar you abhor. You wrote "If a person legally changes their name". "A person" is singular. "Their" is plural. The old, grammatically correct form would be "If a person legally changes his name..." The newer one (which is awkward, so some people use "their" now, in a grammatically incorrect manner): "If a person changes his or her name."

What does "legally" have to do with it? Why should that matter?

Good manners suggest that we should refer to people by the name they request us to use.

(I notice you use the plural pronoun "their" when the referent is singular. Maybe you are coming around.)

I do not believe in Adam and Eve as historical figures.

All human behavior is "natural" — Questioner

Neither do I. But the story was probably first told during the transition from small, hunting and gathering societies (represented as "Eden") to civilizations based on agriculture and animal husbandry (represented by Cain and Abel).

Human behavior is "natural" in one sense, but in some uses of the word "cultural" is distinct from "natural".

Chimps may know what "belongs to them". But for humans it differs from culture to culture. In most hunting and gathering societies, the hunter who kills an animal doesn't "own" it; he is required by custom to distribute it among the group.

Of course non-human animals have a sense of morality, as the experiment with capuchin monkeys clearly shows.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=capuchin+monkey+morality+experiment&mid=C8EB1E689CAA032DFE8DC8EB1E689CAA032DFE8D&FORM=VIRE

What non-human animals don't have is moral "codes" (because they lack sophisticated language). The "knowledge of good and evil" may (my interpretation) refer to moral codes, rather than "morals".

The evolution of moral codes developed from concepts of morality, not the other way around. — Questioner

Maybe. Maybe not. "Thou shalt not steal", for example, depends on a theory of property rights that did not exist in many simple societies. So the moral code and the notion of "property" developed together.

When Eve ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, this may represent the transition from simple, hunting and gathering societies (like Eden) to more complicated civilizations in which morality must be codified (because it is less "natural").

Language is not used to 'shape' reality. That's manipulation.
— Philosophim

I think this is naive in a way I find it hard to overstate. Language absolutely, 100% shapes our reality — AmadeusD

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (well known in anthropology) states, "Language has a tyranny on thought." The idea was that Inuits, who have 22 words for snow, actually see snow differently from us temperate zoners.

Perhaps trans women and men want to be seen as the gender with which they identify. This would involve using gender-appropriate pronouns. The words "man" and "woman" come up rarely in ordinary speech (with regard to the individuals with whom one is conversing). Instead, they are used on applications, medical information forms, drivers' licenses and passports.

Since names often indicate gender, if a trans person changes her (OK, the pronoun is controversial) name from "Al" to "Alice" would those objecting to the pronoun preferred by the individual insist on continuing to call her "Al"?

For the teleological explanation, we ask, "What is it good for?" Does it produce a good outcome? Well, in the context of natural selection, we can say that any traits that are selected for, have the effect of increasing fitness - improving the chances of survival and reproduction. — Questioner

IN his book Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches Marvin Harris (a neo-Marxist anthropologist) offers economic "explanations" for the taboos on eating pigs and cows. They are complicated and abstruse. (They may also be dated, I studied anthropology several decades ago.)

I don't buy it. You needn't taboo rational economic behavior. Instead, the taboos (if nothing else) communicate that an individual is willing to give up something valuable to assert membership in the group. Membership is more important than eating cows, pigs, or fish on Friday.

So, you are saying that goodness comes from God and we know this because the Bible tells us it's so?

I think the more likely explanation is that we evolved something called biological altruism.

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures – — Questioner

If that's true, why do we need moral rules? Of course all female mammals are altruistic toward their children. If they weren't, the children wouldn't survive (until human practices like adoption and orphanages).

Anthropologists claim that the incest taboo is the one universal human moral code. But moral codes wouldn't be necessary if people didn't desire to break them. Moslems have a taboo about eating pork; Hindus about eating beef. Nobody has a taboo about eating dirt, or shit. That's because pork and beef are tasty and healthful. We have moral bans on behavior people would otherwise want to do, not on behaviors for which we have a biological abhorrence. Many of us might want to steal, covet, commit adultery, or forget to keep the Sabbath holy (especially this last). We are enjoined from doing so by the Ten Commandments, not by "biological altruism".

Is it surprising that social controls are similar from one culture to another? Prohibitions against stealing, murdering, coveting one's neighbor's wife, and taking the Lord's name in vain (OK, maybe not this last) are important forms of social control. The universality of the Tao (if, as is not the case, it is universal) proves neither that morality comes from God nor that it comes from "biological altruism".

By the way, Questioner, if you're interested in Indigenous American philosophy, I recommend The Dawn of Everything by Graeber (a cultural anthropologist) and Wengrow (an archaeologist). The authors argue that the traditional liberal European philosophers (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, et. al.) were influenced by Native American philosophy. Some American philosophers came to Europe, and books about their philosophy were popular, promoting individual freedom, rights, and equality.

This is about language. — Philosophim

And I gave you an example where almost all native English speakers would say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods."

Are you going to insist on asking, "How do you know? Just because she looks like a woman, acts like a woman and presents as a woman, you might be lying, because HE might have been born male."

The claim it is the default definition is a given. Go to anyone you know and say, "A woman was walking in the woods." Wait a second. Then ask them, "Did you imagine an adult human male or an adult human female?" Of course we all know the answer is, "Adult human female". That is because man and woman by default do not refer to a role, but a sex. — Philosophim

If the same person saw a person with long hair, breasts, wearing a dress walking in the woods, he or she might say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." Or if he saw such a person entering a men's toilet, he might say, "Huh? Why is a woman entering a men's toilet?"

This is obvious. Of course there is some ambiguity. The question is how to deal with it. I suggest dealing with it with kindness, empathy and good manners. You suggest (incorrectly) that would be a lie.
Since definitions change, it would not be a lie.

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises. — Philosophim

Nonsense. The definition is changing, or has changed. Why else would it be commonplace for people to list their "pronouns". The use of "she" and "her" to refer to transwomen is accepted and normal (although not, perhaps, in MAGA circles). To refer to a trans individual by his or her birth name or birth pronouns is commonly considered rude. Manners (and the definitions of words) are culturally constituted. "Biology" plays little role in how words are defined.

So that premise, at least, is dubious.

It's clarity, directness and ability to be weilded for policy purposes means that "man" and "woman" should be distinct from the more nuanced, and possibly undefinable concepts of gender in each case - which can be captured by "transman" or "transwoman" without ambiguity - the "trans" gives you the data you need to categorize accurately without passing any moral judgement. — AmadeusD

This begs the questions of policy. Should a "transman" use the men's or women's toilets? Should a transwoman play women's sports? It also ignores pronouns. Does a transwoman use "she" and "her"? (I admit that we need a singular neuter pronoun. It grates on my nerves to use "they" or "them" -- but the only alternative is to recast the sentence. That's fine when writing, but awkward in speech.)

Of course your suggestion is more accurate and less ambiguous. But what's so bad about ambiguity? Also, those (nobody here I'm sure) who are prejudiced against trans individuals will be enabled to discriminate more easily.

I would have agreed with this, if TRAs and the entire ideological movement didn't also exist besides trans people who want to do this. I think the concept of "my truth" is absolutely unacceptable in a civilized society, so we're going to disagree on that anyway - but just on empirical grounds, the people Phil and I and referencing (and we need to be honest about this, as above) are overly, explicitly and aggressive expecting/demanding that others live "their truth" (i.e the trans person's "truth") despite either believing it is a lie, or not really caring enough to engage. You don't have to take part in my self-image, and you don't have to take part in mine - again, even if* it reflects some "true" tension between the mind and body in an individual. — AmadeusD

I don't buy it. I doubt many trans people want to "pass" so they can date. If you know someone well enough to "date" (have sex with), you would probably know if he or she were trans. So desired pronouns indicate a public identity, whereas sexual activity is private.

Nor are using desired pronouns "a lie", because pronouns (these days) refer to gender, not to biological sex. The "truth" is that a transwoman is a woman, in terms of her public image, persona, and gender. Therefore the "lie" would be referring to her as "he" or "him" (given the current definition of these pronouns).

By insisting that gender identity develops in utero, you suggest that it is biological, like sex. But gender is culturally determined. So attempting to redefine it as biological supports the notion that proper use of gendered pronouns (for example) is biologically determined. I disagree. It's a matter of politely accepting the gender identity of others, whether or not it is biologically determined.

Transgender individuals experiencing dysphoria are literally and biologically less connected to their bodies. — Questioner

My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy.

People do not "decide" to become transgender - they are born that way. — Questioner

It is obvious that transgender individuals are "less connected to their bodies". WE don't need studies of fetal development to figure that out.

Of course it is interesting to try to understand the causes of transgenderism (is that a word?). But it is irrelevant politically and ethically. Acceptance of trans people (and that includes using their new names and pronouns) is a matter of decency and good manners. If some transgender individuals are "born that way" and others are not, would it be reasonable to discriminate against the latter group, but not the former?

You consent to obey the law, or petition for the law to be changed. But until the law is changed, you consent in the social contract between an individual and government. — Philosophim

Tell that to the protesters in Iran who are being shot, arrested and tortured. Maybe (just maybe) they think that the government is acting without their "consent".

Your lack of humor about the dogs and cats is telling. Do you always take yourself so seriously?

To be specific, and in philosophy specificity in definitions is important: Gender: The non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public. For example, "Men are expected to wear top hats, women are not." — Philosophim

Your point about top hats is merely silly, as the video of Judy Garland singing "Get Happy" demonstrates (OK, it's a fedora, not a top hat, but the point remains valid).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7d0NRewzW4&list=RDq7d0NRewzW4&start_radio=1

You seem to be stuck on misunderstood definitions, incorrect ideas about morality, and an inability to comprehend my arguments or examples. Therefore, I will emulate Elinor Dashwood, in Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility.

"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition."

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you. — Philosophim

Huh? Why is the law always right? If (as I pointed out earlier) Robin Hood thinks the law is unjust. The tax collectors are violating the consent of the Saxons by collecting taxes, and Robin Hood is violating the consent of the Normans by taking the largesse back. Do the protesters in Iran "consent" to be abused by the government by dint of being born there? The notion that we all consent to obey the law is silly.

Consent is a factor in morality -- but not the most important factor. Suppose some pervert consents to have you torture and kill him? Is it perfectly OK for you to do it? As I have repeated: nobody is forcing you (or anyone else) to use someone's desired pronouns. Nobody is forcing you to say "please" or "thank you". But it's good natured and mannerly to say "please", "thank you" and the preferred "him" or "her". You needn't do so, and I needn't think you are a kind, well-mannered person when you refrain.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. If someone wants to be perceived as a "he' or a "she", it's well-mannered to comply, just as it's well mannered not to dead-name people. it is not sexist. Sexism suggests that one gender (sex) and the behaviors associated with it are superior to another's. We all know that women like cats, and men lie dogs (sometimes). A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. That is denying the importance of relationships, which are far closer, more intense, and more reciprocal with a dog than with a cat." Although true, that would be sexist, if we used it to suggest that our girlfriends or wives are not interested in close relationships. Also, it might lead them to dump us.

If a trans woman likes dogs better than cats we might think, "Hmmm". But we should still use the preferred pronouns.

So it is not rude to ask a person to use preferred pronouns. If they don't consent to do so, it would not be rude to think they are crude jerks. Nor would it be rude to cut their acquaintance. Your idea that using preferred gender terms is "prejudiced" and "sexist" just doesn't hold water. So if you want to justify your rudeness, you should find some other reason.

Let me be clear. In no uncertain terms is anyone's consent 'baloney'. Violating another person's consent is the definition of being a scummy person. It is the one commonality to every single immoral and evil act in this world. Your attempt to invalidate a person's consent is coersive and manipulative. its evil. It is one of the highest immoral positions a person can hold. — Philosophim

Do you even read my posts? Your position is not viable. Here are some (of many) examples in which violating another person's consent is perfectly acceptable:

1) "I don't want to go to school today, daddy," said Billy.

"You have to go to school," said his father. "It's a law and a family rule."

2) "You were going 55mph in a 30 mph zone," said the police officer.

"I wanted to go that fast," said Philosophim.

"Tough," said the officer. "You will pay your fine, and if you don't consent you will be dragged off to prison."

3) "I want to sleep in your house," said the homeless person. "I don't consent to leave."

"Leave right now or I will call the police and they will handcuff you and take you to prison whether you consent or not," said the home owner.

I already explained this to you. Maybe now you will understand.

Why is it objectively good manners? — Philosophim

Good manners are determined by social contracts. They are designed to facilitate social interaction and to make others feel more comfortable. ON that basis, it is good manners to call people by the names they prefer, even if those are not their birth names. Similarly, it is good manners to use their preferred pronouns. Occasionally, it is reasonable to violate the code of manners. If someone calls you an asshole, it's impolite, but reasonable, to call him an asshole back. If someone has covid, it's reasonable to refuse to shake his hand. Dead-naming and misgendering people is not justified by any offence anyone has offered you.

According to you, every parent is "coercive and evil". I'm a parent. Although I rarely coerced my son to do anything he didn't want to do, I sympathize with parents who punish their children (without their consent) for crossing dangerous streets without permission. Good grief! This is all so obvious!

Huh? The full poem is 300 pages long, The bit I provided is the last verse. The author is MIlton, not me.

I don't think denying treatment to children is reasonable or ethical. However, whether it should be illegal is a more difficult question.

OTOH... it is illegal and thus unethical for a parent to withhold lifesaving medical treatment from their minor child (thereby hastening the child's death), — LuckyR

It's illegal in our home state of Oregon, but legal in Idaho. The "Followers of Christ" religious group doesn't believe in using medicine. Some of their children die horrible (and preventable) deaths, from diabetes, for example.

Two paremts were convicted of manslaughter in Oregon, but the cult continues its practices in Idaho. My son (a journalist) wrote stories about them and worked on the documentary "No Greater Law", which is quite well done and availsble on line on many streaming channels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Greater_Law

Behave and stop distracting the thread with antics. Keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults — Philosophim

If ever a thread needed distraction with antics, this is the one. Twenty-six pages worth of excusing rudeness and bigotry with silly justifications based on faulty linguistics! Please! Distract me!

Paradise ruled by a dictator seems almost an oxymoron to me. And, I find it hard to think of a place where certain knowledge is forbidden as a paradise.

Milton's fondness for Cromwell makes me wonder whether he'd be adverse to that, though. Churchill thought Cromwell was a military dictator, and I tend to agree with him. — Ciceronianus

Cromwell may have been like Satan in Paradise Lost. Satan's rebellion is seen as at least somewhat noble. But he wants "to rule in hell", instead of promoting freedom for all. That's his downfall.

Also, what does it mean to "stand against immorality"? One could "stand against" Trump by refusing to vote for him, by demonstrating in the streets, or by plotting a revolution.

Also, Trump is clearly a liar, a con man and a rapist (or, at least, a sexual predator). But how does one "stand against" that. He's already been tried and found guilty (in civil court) and fined hundreds of millions of dollars (for both the fraud and the sexual predation), which he hasn't paid. What else can we do?

My personal animosity toward Trump is based on his personality and his extra-Presidential behavior. I also despise his policies -- but I'm not sure they are more immoral than Obama's drone assassinations. Bill Clinton was also a sexual predator. Should we really let our political biases rule our hearts, as well as our minds? Clinton certainly had more charm than Trump (from my perspective). Perhaps our "love" and "hate" are (and should be) subjective.

I'm not sure, i'd just like to point out that we can, and have, replaced rule by a king/Queen/oligarchy with the rule of law subject to democratic alteration. We perhaps haven't done it very well, and it's massively under attack at the moment, but it can be improved. First step to improving the robustness is to get rid of first part the post, perhaps. — bert1

Good point, although the French Revolution suffered from some of the same problems as Satan's rebellion. Despite its problems, the American Revolution still stands as an example. My point about utopia and anarchy remains.

IN the chapter on Jefferson, Reade does point out his hypocrisy as a slave owner. His affair with Sally Hemmings began in Paris (to which she accompanied him). She was Jefferson's dead wife's half-sister (his father-in-law also had a slave mistress), and their affair began in Paris where Sally accompanied Jefferson as a ladies' maid to his daughter. She was only 14 or 15 at the time, and since slavery was illegal in France she and her brother Robert almost refused to return. Jefferson promised Sally's brother Robert he would free him if he returned (which both did). What promises Jefferson made to Sally have not been recorded. (Donald Trump's autocratic ambitions are clearly endangering the American Dream, and would have been reviled by Jefferson, who was a small-federal-government advocate.)

Are you asking what Milton may have thought and wanted his readers to think? — Ciceronianus

I'm asking both that and what people here think about my questions. I'm actually leading a book group on Paradise Lost tomorrow and figure any feedback I get here might help me design questions for the group (which I haven't thought up yet).

I just finished reading the Epic (I was motivated to read it by What in me is Dark by Oliver Reade), and It's likely some of the younger generation women in the group will be shocked by the sexism, but Adam is portrayed as quite a romantic character. He eats the apple because he knows Eve will be expelled from Eden and he loves her enough to share her punishment. Another question might be: Is the sexism involved in Eve being a "helpmate" for Adam and a weak sinner a mere reflection of the mores of the time, or did biblical (and Milton's) sexism reenforce and drive sexist mores?

I've always thought that if coercive violence is a bad thing and if laws are always enforced by coercive violence, utopia must be an anarchy (which would rule out heaven). I'm curious what others think.

The originators of spirituality were ordinary folks seeking answers to unanswerable (with the level of knowledge at the time) questions. — LuckyR

Perhaps. But other theories abound. The "myth and ritual" school in anthropology argues for the primacy of ritual. Attempts to influence the natural world through ritual lead to myths explaining the rituals. Of course nobody knows for sure -- but this explanation makes sense since non-verbal animals practice rituals, and, with the development of language, it would make sense to explain them.

James Frazer, in "the Golden Bough" suggests that in many cultures' rituals remained constant, while in preliterate societies myths were constantly changing. IN the famous opening of that book he describes how the ritual surrounding the kingship of the lake at Nemi was explained by the "dying and rising God" stories.

IN the U.S., with so many sole scriptura Protestants, primacy has been given to myth, and with the advent of written stories, myth became more constant. However, in other religions (like Buddhism) rituals (practices) retain importance.

IN addition, most preliterate societies do not differentiate between "myth" and "history". Story tellers tell tales about the past and are doubtless motivated to embellish to entertain their listeners. The notion that myths are a form of "primitive science" seems less correct than that they are a "primitive (oral) history".

Women are women. So how can transwomen simply be the same as women? — Fire Ologist

What does this have to do with bathrooms? Surely the way to allow people to feel comfortable in bathrooms is to allow those looking like and presenting as women to use the Ladies Room, and those presenting as men to use the Mens Room. Perhaps women would be uncomfortable if someone who looked like a man entered their domain -- but why would anyone care if someone presenting as a woman did?

So the word “woman” only functions relative to other words. That is the source of the confusion. I am saying the word “woman” functions relative to certain things. Otherwise, when a dude with a beard in a three-piece suit walks into the ladies room, we can’t tell him “Ladies” means “not you dude.” — Fire Ologist

What if the "dude with a beard" was born a woman? Which public toilet should (he or she) use now?

The bathroom obsession about trans people is ridiculous. If someone looks like a man, he or she will create less of a stir using the "Mens" room; if someone looks like a woman, what harm is done if (he or she) uses the "Ladies" room?

Not all Christians have believed that hell entails everlasting punishment. — Tom Storm

Abbe Arthur Mugnier, a French divine, was asked if he believed in hell. He replied, "Yes, because it is a dogma of the church -- but I don't believe anyone is in it."

In order for the definition and use of a word to change (at all) from “x” to “y”, the word has to first be defined as “x”. Static enough is essential to communication among different people — Fire Ologist

This is actually incorrect. Word usage comes first; definitions come later. Lexicographers don't determine the definitions -- common usage does, and the lexicographers study it and use it to create dictionaries. These days, the definitions of gendered pronouns are changing. They are often used to refer to a person's gender identity rather than his or her sex.