1. What, exactly, do you mean by 'system'? — Pieter R van Wyk

The system was that people stood in line and waited their turn.

You mention unwritten rules that were followed and then not followed - is that not the basis of any political change and if so, we humans has been doing that for as long as philosophy has been studied, not so? — Pieter R van Wyk

I was pointing out why this is. From your opening post. If everyone doesn't buy in, then we get a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!"

Your contribution is appreciated and thank you for the plain english but I do not find myself closer to an answer to my question. — Pieter R van Wyk

The answer is some people will always be selfish c**ts if they think they can get away with it and there aren't sufficient rules and discipline to stop them. It isn't rocket science.

Why do you think the world is as it is?

In England we have always had a system of queuing. It was an agreed set of unwritten rules and no one transgressed. The system worked was egalitarian and was literally "first come first served"

This has degenerated in the last few decades and people try and game the system. Once there is a small breakdown in the system, it rapidly becomes every man (or woman) for themselves.

We can have wonderful ideas about no strife, everyone being fed etc etc but as soon as a couple of people jump the queue the result is chaos and the breakdown of balance in society.

Also, when there is inequality then there is resentment and people wishing to get more than they have when they see others with more.

I also think we like a struggle and a bit of a scrap.

Not one ism was quoted there.

Overwhelmingly, the world appears to do much as advertised. — Banno

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck. I'm going with duck.

I too wonder what life could have been had i not made this terrible choice. — hypericin

It seems I may have been wrong about the choice!
I have come through life almost scar free and I have lead an ordinary life but an enjoyable one.
I am fairly passive on most decisions as I see them as almost irrelevant but I think I was just very lucky. Which sometimes is important (even though I'm not superstitious in any way.

I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder on the 5th of March 1998. My parents told me to ignore the psychiatrist and not take the prescribed medications. I didn't listen to my parents. I trusted my psychiatrist and took the prescribed medications. 27 years and 3 months later, I am still struggling with depression and all the side-effects of the prescribed medications. I have gone from 65 kg to 98 kg as my medication causes weight gain. My mental illness has ruined my physical health, education, career and relationships. I often wonder how my life would be if I had listened to my parents instead of my psychiatrist. — Truth Seeker

I think any choices you would have made in the past will have been overwhelmed by your condition.

I think you made the correct decision in trusting the psychiatrist even if the outcome was much worse than keeping off meds. (not that you will ever know)
It was an informed decision and the advice was made by professionals that see patients constantly and even give the best care available at the time.

Going forward, I think simple decision making on a micro level would be of benefit.
You say that your physical health, education, career and relationships have been ruined but you are where you are and decisions going forward are the only ones that matter.

You can start on your fitness from today. I'm in my 60s and whilst being relatively fit I wanted to improve. One goal was pressups. My first attempt was 5 and I collapsed. Every day I shower and the water takes a few minutes to warm up. Every day I now do pressups before the shower. I have improved but the lesson I learned was that I need to do it everyday and it is a little win.
I would see your career and education now would be to learn about nutrition and fitness and work at it slowly and incrementally and don't sweat any

You obviously love your parents and you can repay them by being a slightly better person than you were. That is mainly for you though.

Relationships is a hard one, especially the older you get but the relationship most important now is with yourself.

Sympathy is more like social radar, empathy is sharing in the pain of those who show up on that radar. — DifferentiatingEgg

what does that mean?

Also, the issue of empathy has become an important area in psychiatry, in relation to autism — Jack Cummins

How can someone with autism feel an emotion that they have no concept of and cannot read the situation anyway?

Sociopaths have no concept of empathy (I assume) Narcissists too?

I am uncertain about where I stand on the issue of empathy/sympathy being about semantics. — Jack Cummins

A mother who has lost a child can empathise with another mother who has lost a child. I could only sympathise as I would not be arrogant enough to think I could imagine the process and pain. Maybe, that is my lack of imagination but the mother would have my utmost sympathy.

I would have sympathy for a homeless crack addict but doubt I could empathise.

I think we are on the same page.
I am far more robust regarding society. I think a lot of modern attitudes and beliefs are utter nonsense. The fragility of people’s psyche and mental health I find baffling. Maybe philosophy needs to step up a bit in the modern world and give a bit of guidance.
Luckily, I live in a fairly sane part of the world and can ignore most of the craziness. The craziness I do find amusing.

Nobody has to do anything — Michael

Exactly. The world has come on really well, in certain aspects, over the last couple of centuries.

Socialization. That's the process. This isn't really arguable, unless you hold (against basically every single take that makes sens) that gender is tied to sex, rather than associated with it. — AmadeusD

My previous posts you have engaged with have said as such. I was asking specifically in 2025 what gender stereotype do people have to conform with?

It is, quite simply, bullshit, that the world does not create expectations and standards for gendered behaviour. These are unavoidable in early life. — AmadeusD

I have no issue with this. I have so in my previous posts which (I assume) read since you responded.

If you want to just say that "foisted" is too harsh of a word, that's fine — AmadeusD

If you had started with that then maybe some decent exchange may have taken place.

In reality, many people don't have that (I did not) and suffer the pressure of conform to social norms around gender. — AmadeusD

There are many pressures in life and you may live in a conservative part of the world but what social norms are you pressured into? How is this any different to anyone else?

But it clearly, without sense of doubt, is. — AmadeusD

No one has to conform to any gender stereotype.
How is gender foisted on someone?
Explain the process.

That's great. You made an inaccurate statement, that statement basically being: "social expectation is not required (forced upon [anyone])". — Outlander

The statement was gender is not foisted upon anyone.

What is expected of a woman in 2025 in Western liberal democracies? What gender specific thought or action is "foisted" upon them?

Scientific facts and reference along with common sense — Outlander

Another LOL

So it's not a logical point that has any relevance in this or any discussion. — Outlander

What isn't a logical point? That girls and boys are treated differently as they develop? Is that not logical?

No, those that don't, fade away in place of those that do — Outlander

Differences between the genders will fade away? They will definitely change but they won't fade away because there are some problematic biological issues that mean there are differences that will won't fade away. Why is it problematic if some females prefer certain stuff more than males and vice versa?

Naturally. "Societal" differences just reminds me of fluid dynamics applied to psychology ie. "water chooses the path of least resistance" or in more lax terms "what the majority of people happen to think." — Outlander

Are you denying such differences exist? What world do you live in?

Sure, often based on what's best for a given society in a given time and at a given place. — Outlander

I have I said otherwise? What is more, no one is forced to adhere to the differences. (Well, not where I live.)

What has been my point since the beginning, logic and refinement of views and opinions for the betterment of society — Outlander

What have I said is not based on the way the world is?

What do you object to, if more women prefer a bottomless brunch and more men prefer the footy? It's not as if they are exclusive for either gender.

Animals that don't fit in are ostracized. Ostracization in the animal kingdom has a 90%+ rate of death. Are you religious and believe humans are set apart from animals? If not, you believe in science. And that is the science. So, you happen to be incorrect in any and all practical sense, if so. — Outlander

The only response to that is LOL.

Not all descriptions are valid or above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species. — Outlander

So what? Do descriptions have to be above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species?

There are aggregated societal differences between the sexes. Gender describes those differences. What is your point?

If Gender is actually something foisted upon you, but it is a collective bargain, so to speak, you would need to opt ouit of the social contract to deny it. That's somewhat fair imo. — AmadeusD

I don't see gender as something foisted on you. It's just a description of cultural and social differences between the sexes.

Those differences are changing constantly BUT the sex of a person is a huge factor in the their development.

People can be whoever they wish to be and do not have to play the role that used to be ascribed to the genders. However, there is no doubt in my mind a woman and a man have different experiences growing up and biology plays a factor in physical development and to a smaller extent with hormonally BUT the way the world reacts to either sex is a huge factor on the development of all adults.

People can do whatever they want but cannot alter how they developed as a child and adult.

So, I don't see changing a gender as possible since it's just a description of aggregated and changing social norms. IMHO.

This is where we disagree. I think a person is viewed from very a very early age because of their sex. Even in the most liberal and equitable places girls and boys are treated differently. They are given every opportunity to be whoever they want to be and to do what they want but the world treats them differently and this becomes part of the adult. They are a man or a woman because of how the world has interacted with them and how they see them. They may be a very "feminine" man but they are still a man. I don't think a man calling himself as a women, is of any use to anyone.

Surely the heavy handed way that the raids are being performed is meat and drink to Trump's supporters.

I have no issue with a Sovereign State removing illegal aliens. If I went from UK to USA on a tourist visa and tried to overstay and work for a living I would expect to be booted out fairly quickly.

I have to say, I can't quite understand what you're actually trying to say.
The concept of gender refers to behaviour and presentation. These are, obviously not 'sexed'. They vary with sex, in most cases. So to me, there's no issue with people claiming whatever gender ID they want whenever they want, along any lines they want. It has to be related to actual gender presentational norms, though (but note: norms. These are not benchmarks, or objectively assessable criteria which leads to...)

The problem, as I see it, is that no one else has to give two squirts of piss about your identity, if it isn't somehow legally understood tout court (i.e sex, ethnicity, religious affiliation etc..) and gender should not be, in any way, a legal concept. It is utterly absurd that there are laws that describe gender as a factor in anything. its so ambiguous as to be essentially unenforceable, other than to assent to screeching children complaining that the world doesn't conform to their wishes.

There's nothing wrong with lamenting the world and your place in it - thinking anyone else needs to do anything about it is a mistake, and in the West, we have (although this seems to have curtailed recently) moved towards policies which enforce some kind of collective assent to people's identities. Ridiculous, and clearly (i.e in action, right now, all around us) a totally failed project. — AmadeusD

I agree with you in everything other than

"there's no issue with people claiming whatever gender ID they want whenever they want, along any lines they want"

I think there is an issue. It undermines what it is to be a woman and men cos-playing as women is lamentable.

I have no issue with genuine sufferers of gender dysphoria (which is a tiny percentage of the trans cohort)

As for the girls/young women who are disfigured by the medical professional instead of being given psychiatric help. The less said the better.

It seems to me the term gender has been hijacked. It's a perfect reasonable concept to describe societal differences between the sexes. These have changed dramatically over time and are not exclusive to either sex but describe the social differences that are more typically (but not exclusively) relating to one sex or another.
There would be no issue of people commandeering the other gender if there was not significant differences between the two sexes in an few significant areas.
I have no idea why people struggle with the issue other than self importance or delusion..

The transgender issue IS a rabbit hole, so to even participate is to jump down a rabbit hole and argue with esoteric posters.

Philosophy often involves exploring rabbit holes. — Harry Hindu

I don’t think it is. It’s an extremely simple issue.

Rabbit holes are sometimes fun but very rarely about the subject being discussed.

Could the same sentence(s) be said accurately if the words "woman" and "women" were replaced with "man" and "men", respectively? Why or why not? — Outlander

Absolutely but there is a power imbalance between the sexes. Physical and social and economic. It has improved dramatically in the last 60 years.
Things may change and women may be happy to share changing facilities in the future but until then female spaces need to be female only.

What would it be like in a world where men never existed and only women did? — Outlander

Then there would be no need for women’s exclusive places.

I get your point. It may be shallow in the sense that what it means to be a conscious human being is just so deep and rich a topic of discussion that it transcends our biological differences entirely and makes said differences seem ridiculous to talk about in comparison — Outlander

That isn’t my point. My point there is a biological difference and that affects the way your family, peers, neighbours etc etc react to you. A man does not get the same upbringing as a woman. Combined with child rearing and power imbalance, women and men are different and no man can jump the divide and become a woman. Imho.

Genitalia (presumably the underlying biological reality and innate chemical differences that produce the difference types) and menstruation is gender? Menstruation is a social construct? Really? Like women can just will the cycle a way? And conversely I can menstruate if I just really set my mind to it? I think that claim of yours needs a slight looking at and a fair amount of tinkering before it's "street legal", per se. While we're on the shtick of chastising arguments. — Outlander

Like I said, utterly shallow.

I'm pretty sure I defined a woman as an adult human female somewhere in this thread — Harry Hindu

I think we are probably on the same page. You’ve just gone down rabbit holes of madness arguing minutiae with some of the more esoteric posters.
Adult human female is a definition I’ll agree with.

The standard of this philosophical debate is shallow.
Not one contributor has addressed what it means to be a woman in 2025.
Biology is fundamental to a woman’s experience and existence. Not because of genitalia or menstruation or even physical disadvantages but how they are perceived by society. That is gender. How society looks at women. What it is to be a woman is built by society from the day a girl is born. How a woman is viewed and views herself is built minute by minute by society. Luckily, in 2025 most of society is fairly relaxed and doesn’t discriminate and laws have been put in place to prevent discrimination but there is still a fundamental difference between men and women.
In sports, excluding men is based on biology. I doubt anyone can argue against that now. Women’s spaces are based on biology because of how society looks at women and the social norms regarding ablutions and public nakedness.
There is a difference between men’s and women’s exclusive places because there is no cultural issue with men sharing spaces with trans men.
Has anyone of the "let all facilities be unisex" asked women what they think of that? Society's preferences seem to be sacrificed on the altar of making sure every minority view is included.
Some very contorted views on here trying to justify males encroaching on female spaces.

having a female gender. — Michael

So females have to accommodate women in female only spaces? Even if that makes them uncomfortable and fearful?

A better question to ask is; are there any good reasons to object to trans men using men's spaces and trans women using women's spaces? When it comes to something like sports, I think there are. But when it comes to something like toilets? I've already addressed the fact that if safety is our main concern then it's better to let trans men use the men's bathroom and trans women using the women's bathroom. — Michael

So you don’t think there any good reasons to restrict access to female facilities to females only.
I

Instead of going round in a loop of disagreement I think it would be useful to get your understanding of why you think society and (most) women object to trans women in female spaces. Also, what constitutes being a woman?
Is it incumbent on everyone else to fall into line with someone’s view of who they are?

It is not really purely male or purely female either, is it? So we have to make room for these people in our society, our laws and our thinking? — prothero

It is and we don’t.

If you are in charge of deciding who is allowed to use which bathroom, then would you require that trans men who have had genital surgery and now have an artificial penis use the men’s bathroom or the women’s bathroom?

Have a women's bathroom and an open bathroom. Have women's sport and open sport.

All inclusive. Sorted.

In proposing unisex bathrooms you are taking away the trans-gender person's reasons for having surgery in the first place - to affirm their gender. — Harry Hindu

It's just another dispiriting pious measure nailed to the cross of trans inclusion.

I doubt any woman would be happy with having to go to the loo after a couple of blokes on a morning after the night before. Lasses have a sanctuary on a night out to have a laugh with their mates and maybe escape from people they prefer not to interact with. It's just another part of culture sacrificed to include people who want the world to bend to their whim.

So either you disagree with the facts or you don’t actually care about people’s safety at all. Perhaps you’re just using that as a dog whistle to push an anti-trans agenda. — Michael

You don't appear to be concerned about women's fears. Perhaps you’re just using that as a dog whistle to push an misogynistic agenda.

I’m simply pointing out the fact that it is safer for everyone if trans people are allowed to use their preferred bathroom. — Michael

So women are uncomfortable with men in their bathrooms and have to put up with it?

I have no idea what you mean here. — Michael

I really don't think you do.

The studies show that this is the safer option for everyone. — Michael

So women should stand aside as usual.

The evidence shows otherwise. — Michael

One study by a Gender studies lecturer is not the 10 Commandments.

As I said even if true it doesn't change the narrative.

Are you saying that (a) and/or (b) are false? Or are you saying that you don’t care that they’re true? — Michael

I'm saying (a) is false but even if it wasn't men should not be allowed in women's exclusive spaces.

Even if (b) is true, men should not be allowed in women's exclusive spaces.

Why should women have to compromise for men?

Are you saying women are stupid to feel that they should exclude men from their exclusive places?

I don’t play it down. — Michael

cisgender women are not put at risk by trans-inclusive bathroom policies. — Michael

Sounds like you are.

I’m not playing down women’s experiences. I’m simply explaining that “women’s experiences” is not reducible to “the experience of humans with an XX karyotype, ovaries, and a vagina.”

Women as a gender is distinct from women as a sex, even if they almost always correspond. The fact that they almost always correspond has caused you to mistakenly conflate the two. — Michael

No matter how you repeat the same thing over and over doesn't alter the fact that you wish to allow males into female spaces. playing down the concerns females have at males gaining access to to places where females feel vulnerable and uncomfortable in the presence of males.

Luckily, society seems to have caught up and is clamping down.

And yet the poll you linked to says that 51% of men oppose trans men using the men's toilets (with only 33% in support). So evidently most men do care. — Michael

That surprises me.

Yes, but there's more to biology, and in particular neurology, than just sex chromosomes and genitals. — Michael

Of course, I've never said otherwise.

And transgender women growing up will not have the same experiences as cisgender men, and transgender men growing up will not have the same experiences as cisgender women. It's not all about sex chromosomes and genitals. I don't know why you can't accept this. — Michael

I can accept it. people can be whoever they wish.

We are conscious organisms with complex psychologies and personal identities, with gender identity "develop[ing] surprisingly rapidly in the early childhood years, and in the majority of instances appears to become at least partially irreversible by the age of 3 or 4." — Michael

I agree with this too. people can identify how they wish. They are still male and female and males and females are seen different by society and this needs recognising in certain spaces.
You are denying this difference and wish to play down the woman's experience in modern society. That's what a man does, many of them would argue.