Bathrooms are private places, which explains putting toilets next to showers. — Hanover

Now. Not always.

I am not sure what nudity has to do with this. I think that is more or less Victorian era hang up.

btw I only get naked when I go to the toilet because this country is VERY hot.

I am looking at this over the span of human history.

From some brief investigations it does appear that washing and toilet facilities were kept separate (eg. Roman times). What I find particularly strange is that in purification rituals (common across all beliefs) it makes no sense to mix toilets and cleaning areas.

In the modern day plumbing technologies, and social habits, have changed this but perhaps there are certain hang ups about this?

In another area, it is undoubtedly true that feces were collected for agricultural use and this must have shaped how toilets were designed and operated. I do not buy into the idea that it is simply due to plumbing convenience as we do not find toilets, baths or showers in kitchen areas. Adjacent, yes. Combined, no.

It wasn't that long ago, you had to wash yourself in a river. — Outlander

It was a fairly long time ago ... nearly 15 years now. How did you know? Were you spying on me when I shat on the jungle floor too?

Interesting thoughts.

What strikes me is the integration of 'bathing' and 'waste disposal'. It seems like an unlikely combo, where one is refined and even sophisticated (roman bath houses or 'powder rooms') and the other is ... well, a less romantic scene!

What do you think about this strange partnership? Why on earth does anyone have a toilet located anywhere near where they clean themselves? Obviously it is practical in one sense, yet in order it seems absurd to the point of being obscene.

It is almost as if you are answering without reading. Nvrmind.

A trans woman will have the same advantages that a man has had when growing up. Why should a male be allowed to compete because they identify as a woman? — Malcolm Parry

If the playing field is level. That was my point. If there are women's, men's and unisex categories, then I think it is worth arguing that women's only events are open to trans women too. Otherwise the reasoning you use about "cultural issues" seems to apply for women but not for trans women.

When it comes to physical sports I am generally against trans women competing as trans women in women's sports. For cases where there is no discernable difference (non-physical to low end physical sports), and there are currently men competing against women in tournaments, I see no reason to bar trans women from women's events. Realistically we would be talking about one or two very passionate people interested in competing with other women as if they are a woman. What harm could this possibly cause?

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

I think you missed my point. How well are these laws enforced? It is a little more important than being able to use a toilet I feel.

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. — AmadeusD

So you would take the line that it is a choice of career over personal identity? I would agree for sports such as tennis. For other sports I do not know enough about the differences between the sexes. I would imagine so-called cognitive sports like chess or poker are far more open to accepting anyone. In some areas there is no harm at all.

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? Then there is snooker, which is classed as a sport. It may well be the case that men have some advantages over women in this sport too, yet it is far from obvious how - unlike tennis or football.

In some categories of sport there are mixed sex tournaments as well as individual sex tournaments. If there is no advantage in a sport is it okay for a trans woman to enter a women's tournament? Lets say in chess. If you think it is wrong I just want to know. You can have that opinion.

I think the world is unfair, and that if a trans woman wishes to compete in any hard physical sport at a professional level they should only against other trans women or be a man and compete.

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? — AmadeusD

I have hope for many people on this forum - including myself and you. We are all pretty much resistant to uncomfortable realities as we wish to survive relatively intact rather than fractured.

I recall a documentary where someone had his leg amputated because the leg felt like it wasn't his. It clearly caused him a lot of distress and he knew the reality of the situation. Nevertheless, he had the leg removed and was happy about this.

If you support antinatalist ideas based on 'harm' I find your stance here rather confusing in this light. If the only way to ameliorate suffering is to allow people to live in a certain space in the world - within certain limitations - then what is the problem? The question seems to be more about the extent of the limitations (of which we all necessarily have to live by to lesser or greater degrees).

Understandable never entails right, yeah. — fdrake

Well, I think it would be right not me make someone in a fragile state feel unnecessarily vulnerable as it would exacerbate their suffering and lengthen their period of recovery.

So, sometimes it is necessary to take into account people's feelings in regards to their personal experiences. We are talking about more extreme cases here I imagine? I am no expert on the kind of domestic violence and rape cases women suffer, but I would not be surprised to find numerous cases where 'understandable' does equate with 'right' (legal).

Maybe I am wrong though? Often enough the treatment can be more exposure to the cause of the pains?

The tennis thing is low hanging fruit. Leave it alone.

Anyone with any kind of sense understands that there are clear physiological advantages for trans women over women. The heart of that kind of debate - and what was being alluded to by fdrake - is that there is clearly a difficulty in knowing where to draw the line.

Personally I think it is more or less a case in sports where there is some contention that the person in question needs to ask themselves what is more important, their sporting career or their gender identity. This is not fair, but life offers up some more severe disadvantages to us than others. Perhaps in the relatively near future genetic engineering will put all this to bed and people can just get on being who they are without restrictions. Until then we just have to discuss and hope we can come to some better understanding.

I think it is reasonable to understand that women who have suffer severe domestic abuse from men may feel somewhat uneasy about being around trans women. This may not be completely rational, just as fearing all men would be, but given the psychological damage suffered it is perfectly understandable. In counter to this, I would not suggest that excluding ALL trans women from domestic abuse support groups ALWAYS is anything like a good idea either.

I think the major problem with all of this is we are dealing with a fringe minority and so case by case instances being far fewer leads to greater misconceptions. I imagine the interpretation of statistical facts is where Amadeus would make a counter argument.

When it comes to imprisonment my initial reaction would be that violent and sexual crimes means you have effectively crossed a line. If a trans woman goes to prison for any other crime I do not really see any problem with them being placed in a prison with women. However, this should be on a case by case basis not a one rule fits all (as with most criminal convictions).

Probably the most pressing matter - strangely not discussed - is that of employment and persons being passed over simply because they are trans. This is a tricky double-edged sword just as it is with issues of race. Some will try to abuse the system to get what they believe they deserve. Some are taken in by a sense of victimhood.

Overall, it seems this is just a phase people tend to go through (usually in young adulthood). What can actually be done about this? I am at a loss. I guess we just have to keep on discussing, try to listen more effectively, and not get bogged down in semi-redundant specifics too much. Meaning, avoid applying very particular cases to broader representations of societal (dys)function.

Women do that for us to save us the bother thankfully! :D

I was asking a question. You didn't answer. No problem.

It makes it easier to commit the crime, because they are able to enter a woman's safe space without anyone being suspicious, and get away with it because they are wearing a disguise. — Harry Hindu

What is your point. I simply said anyone can dress up as the opposite sex and enter another toilet. If you can literally not tell the difference there is no way of policing this.

I don't know about you, but I have seen plenty of gay men entering female toilets with their girl friends. Illegal? Yes. Does anyone really care that much to enforce it? No.

No matter what the laws are people will go on being people and work things out in their own way.

Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions. — Harry Hindu

You think having 'disabled toilets' functioning as 'universal toilets' is equivalent to stating gender and sex are the same thing? Are you taking the piss? ;)

You do accept that the difference is as good as universal though? There is far less than 1% difference (to the point where it would be described as statistically universal). Not sure why you are picking hairs here tbh.

It is 6 years and I only said anything here as it seemed to be revived due to definition of 'Woman' in UK.

Haven't you noticed the ambiguity? — unenlightened

Point them out. If there are 'ambiguities' then clearly (or not) some may not. Exactly what do you have a problem with?

There are differences between sexes that matter and need to be taken into consideration when it comes to how we interact with each other.

Sex is actually an important part of the human species as well as human social life. Haven't you noticed this?

If you are interested I wrote some gibberish here: https://matthewroffey.substack.com/p/the-state-of-beauty-part-i?r=48ctos

He viewed On the Aesthetic Education of Man as his best work. It really does explore more than mere 'Aesthetics' and looks to approach a means of uniting two distinct parts of human society.

Far from universal meaning what? In less than 1% of cases? I guess you could try and argue that far less than 1% is "far from universal," but you would then have to state that babies born with two arms is "far from universal" as well.

Why?

How are we going to police men with a dress and a wig that claim to be a woman with the intent to victimize women in a women's bathroom? — Harry Hindu

To be fair, if men are going to do this they needn't 'dress up' for the occasion. If someone appears to be female then I see no real harm in them entering a toilet. The issue being there is no way to tell. If there is a clear case where someone is a man dressed as a woman, then if they enter and no one sees them it makes no difference.

Other ideas would be to rename 'Disabled' toilets as 'Universal' (or something like that).

I think looking at specific cases is kind of trivial. Some people are idiots and some are not. Some people are violent and others are not. Some wish to cause harm and other do not.

We do certainly have to appreciate that certain behaviors have no physiological evidence. For example, being homosexual is not discernable by looking at someone's DNA anymore than being psychopathic is (although I am aware of the former being partially possible).

One thing is for sure. I should not be committing an illegal act for pointing out that someone is a man, fat, black or any other number of things.

I was once verbally 'attacked' for apparently calling someone 'fat,' when in fact the situation was that a girl with literally two chins (clearly obese) stated to everyone around the table that she was NOT fat. I simply said, without hesitation, "Yes, you are. I am not bothered by it. If you are it is your problem." or something along those lines. the fact that the vast majority of people around the table had a go at me, and others remained silent, is why these things come into the public eye.

People shouldn't be gagged if they disagree, but inevitably they will be from time to time. The very fact that these topics are contested is a good sign, even if the manner in which we repeatedly fuck up as a species is annoying. Apathy is probably worse - even if this derails the antagonists!

There are also people born with unique differences (ie. not being able to produce testosterone) that would effectively have them appear to be female.

Note: Exceptions are exceptions though. We do not go around stating that when a child is born with four arms, or no arms, that we should think of humans as having 0-4 arms. Such levels of stupidity exist, so I wouldn't be surprised to find people stating just that.

It doe not matter what anyone thinks or believes. What you say and do has consequences.

Well, that is another related issue. I think it is perfectly fine for someone to be 'black' if they are actually 'white' ... it depends on the level you are talking about.

I am referring to an instance of someone raised in a black family with all the cultural background involved and worked for a charity serving black people. I believe they were then discovered to be 'white' and outrage ensued.

These things can be more complicated that it first seems. It is a bit like saying we are all human. Such definitions only serve a use within a certain domain.

I am assuming this is back on the forums due to the ruling in the UK? Or is it something else? The new ruling is perfectly fine btw. It is for legal reasons. It is absolutely not about discriminating against trans men and women. Some will always look for offence where there is none intended.

It is really quite simple.

Trans women are trans women.

Women are women.

The problem arises in basic human interactions. If someone wishes to be referred to and thought of by others as a woman or man it is out of there hands. Familiarity will change people's perspective more than vitriol.

Honestly I cannot recall a time when I called said 'Hey woman!' or 'Hey man!'. I cannot fathom why anyone has any real issue calling someone by he or she as a trans man or trans woman other than if they felt they were being ridiculed or duped for some reason.

Q1: Nothing/anything.
Q2: Irrelevant due to first answer.

My point being rationality does not really have all that much to say about how to act. We simply act as we act and believe what we believe. Rational justification for what cannot be factually measured is to abscond from ownership of our actions.

At best rational analysis can guide our hand but at the end of the day we move it. Those paralyzed into thinking they need rational justification for past, present or future actions are looking for a way to avoid responsibility.

Food would be the main issue. If farmers do not know when to harvest and plant due to the breaking of regular patterns in the seasons then it could cause problems.

Lack of food is an obvious worry. If agriculture can adapt to the current insecurities I do not see much reason to fret about climate change just yet.

Sorry there is nothing for you to moderate here ;)

Food is the priority.

It says June in title. Were there submissions for previous competition I could read OR has this just been delayed?

Will post brief discussion we had a while back soon ...

Perfectly well.

So what is your actual line of inquiry here? You are explicitly asking about the use of metaphysics or its reality? The latter seems like a contrary question.

We are certainly concerned with our position in the universe. If such a concern is wholly a 'religious' one then the question has to be what you mean by religion? I am not trying to corner you here as I think we might share a similar view here. The problem is using mere words to convey what is meant.

Is there something in the OP you wanted critique of specifically or is it just a whimsical view of the state of religion today for the sake of it?

I do find it interesting that suffering is sometimes equated as a kind of beatific edifice of religious faith. I think this can easily be seen as horrific too rather than a 'special gift' given to the few worthy.

I think it makes sense to believe that they evolved together. The question is then which came first and what is meant by each.

Personally I believe 'ethics' gave rise to 'religion'. I am using those terms rather broadly though.

No one is going to disagree with that.

Is there 'moral might' and does it win out over 'moral wrong'? If so how so? If not how not?

What moral facts?

@Bob Ross I am assuming you are not advocating for the idea of "might is right" but you can surely see that this is an issue.

In concise terms how would you address this criticism?

We attribute values to things. We then necessarily attribute value to our sense of self.

A "self" is needed to value.

This seems massively too easy a question to answer so tell me what you are getting at please.

Meaning: What point are you driving at, or what underlying question/s are you looking to address/reveal?

Just incase anyone is interested. I am looking to start writing philosophical papers for publication soon, so if anyone out there is affiliated with a university and wishes to collaborate on something do not hesitate to get in touch.

My interests are pretty broad, so anything that interests you will likely fall into my sphere of interest too.

Thanks

What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

What matters to you? If defining things matters to you why?

How well it can be enforced is neither here nor there for me. The principle is important. If people are not allowed to drink, vote or drive under a certain age then how are they allowed to go online and see anything they want.

I think as a means of guidance it is okay. At the end of the day the parents will do as they see fit. How will they track facebook and Tiktok and prosecute? Tricky, but the warning is now there so attention will be paid. Given the ease with which everyone's age is available (because of platforms like facebook) they should be able to tell the difference easily enough. They cannot be blamed for children using an adults account though - the point is NOT to make it so easy for kids to see the kind of things that can be seen on Tiktok I think. Of course, you could argue that there are already age restrictions too, but again, this is besides the point of how damaging such platforms can be where children are interacting with children and posting visual material about each other for literally everyone to see. Need I mention 'pig butchering' as one example of many where kids are preyed on.