Rather, I'm using closer cousins to get at a metaphor for two sides of human nature -- not that nature is fixed in some sense, but these are two strategies which species like us employ in resolving differences within the social organism. — Moliere

I don't think limiting ourselves to our closer cousins is the way to go. If you want to exclude some species because you claim that they are not what they appear to be (hierarchical), then I will disagree and just say that all social structures are strategies for resolving differences within the social organism and should be taken into account and compared with each other. When you do that, the social structure of ants/bees more closely resembles the utopia Marx envisioned where the resources are owned by the entire society.

Cats only like to share their resources with close family and friends.

The danger there is that anarchists are more organized than cats, and Marxists are less organized than ants. Further, ants only look like they have a hierarchy -- a queen ant and the workers -- but that's our hierarchical prejudices being projected upon the social form of ants. Ant's are far more invested in the collective than any human ever has been. — Moliere

I guess that depends on which definition of "anarchy" and "hierarchy" you are using.

If I were to use animal metaphors I'd say that anarchy expresses our bonobo side and marxism expresses our chimpanzee side, with the intent of dismantling the chimpanzee side. In order to topple hierarchies hierarchies are necessary evils simply because that's always what's worked before. But for the anarchist in order to topple hierarchies we have to start living like they aren't there, and learn how to chill out and have sex all the time without exploiting one another. — Moliere

Again, the AI response:
Bonobos live in matriarchal, female-dominated societies, where females lead the group and maintain strong bonds with each other. They are known for their peaceful and tolerant interactions, often resolving conflicts through socio-sexual behavior like "gg rubbing". In contrast, chimpanzees have a more hierarchical social structure, with males holding a dominant position and engaging in aggressive behaviors, including territorial defense and intergroup conflicts.

It seems to me that you are saying that a social structure is only hierarchical if it is male-dominated. If only the females were in charge, us men would get more sex? Somehow I doubt that would be the case. More likely, only some men would get more sex and all the others would be left limp.

You're going to have to expand on this cats / bees hypotheses. — boethius

You're telling me I need to tell you about the cats and the bees?

AI's response to the above question:
Cats are generally solitary hunters but can form social groups, particularly in feral conditions. These groups, often consisting of related females and their offspring, are not based on a strict hierarchy like dog packs. Instead, social bonds and affiliations between cats are more flexible and can shift based on individual preferences and resource availability.

Ants live in complex, hierarchical colonies where different roles are assigned based on caste, a term referring to job class. The social structure is characterized by a queen, workers, soldiers, and males, each with distinct functions crucial to the colony's survival.

Yup -- that'd be the utopian version of both, but in terms of differentiating them and trying to wrap your mind around it that's a good simplification. — Moliere

Even more simpler, the difference between anarchy and Marxism is similar to the difference between the social order of cats and the social order of ants/bees.

:roll: Then I have no idea what you're saying, as usual.

Aside from the misrepresentation of this topic, are you saying the only reason to write an essay to incite? — Vera Mont

Well, "incite" could be one possible reaction according to some on these forums. Why would someone write an essay with a faulty analysis of the facts?

It's not describing either of those thing. It's pointing out discrepancies between rhetoric and reality. — Vera Mont

Then we agree that people are not always what they claim to be. An individual is what they are based on natural causes (in the context of mating and medicine) and their actions since becoming a legal adult (in the context of the laws of the society they live in) that preceded their existence at this moment in time.

How do you know? Do you recall being born and knowing what gender you were? Are you speaking of every woman's experience, or a man describing what it's like to be a woman? — Vera Mont

Exactly. I was a male regardless of what I knew or believed until I acquired more information.

So what about my argument are you objecting to? You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. — Michael

Do I seriously need to hold your hand? You must be a p-zombie or an AI training bot.

It follows that, in a society that values freedom and individualism - not communism - that we punish and award an individual's actions, not what someone said that preceded it.

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed.
— Michael
We're not talking about ANY reaction, just unethical ones, like rioting. If someone tells you to give all your money to a beggar, and you do, should that person win the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, or should you? — Harry Hindu

We're not talking about people that respond by saying. "No! What you are saying isn't true! You're manipulating these people to incite a riot.", or actively oppose what others are saying, right? We're talking strictly about bad acts that followed a speech, right?

So let's focus now on why some people either riot or they don't, or they stampede or they don't. Is it the differences in our brain? Yes, I agree. So it would follow that their "brain differences" is what directly preceded their actions and it is those "brain differences" that we should focus on changing if we want to limit stampedes and riots in the future.

If you don't agree that the differences in the brain are the direct cause of one's actions then you would be happy to give the person that told you to give all your money to a beggar the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, right?

When a society punishes and awards others for an individual's actions - that's pretty much communism, right?

What does that mean?

Brains are just a bunch of interconnected neurons sending electrical and chemical signals to one another. There’s nothing above-and-beyond this.

How the brain responds to its environment (e.g signals sent from the sense organs) is determined by the nature of these connections.

Different brains have different connections, and so respond differently to the same stimulus. — Michael

We agree, we're just using different terms to describe what is happening. So if you want to say that our brains are different and it is because we have different types of connections between our neurons, that is fine. This is not our point of contention. You not taking this understanding that there is a difference in our brains and applying it to the issue, is the issue.

Address the other points I made in the post you cherry-picked.

No we wouldn’t because our brains are not identical. — Michael

Exactly. Our brains do not have the same information.

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed. — Michael

We're not talking about ANY reaction, just unethical ones, like rioting. If someone tells you to give all your money to a beggar, and you do, should that person win the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, or should you?

It’s really not clear what your problem is. Do you object to the claim that every physical event is caused to happen by some prior physical event? — Michael

I object to you using the term, "physical", but I do not object to the claim that every effect is followed by a cause, but I am also saying that different effects means that there were different causes at play. This must be the case if determinism is true and you need to acknowledge this if you want to keep using determinism as part of your argument.

Bad example. You need to bring a complex example where your evaluation can fail. Now you can say you've never failed in your life and I won't believe you, or you can provide an example where your evaluation has failed and where you had to correct your opinion afterwards. In such a situation you had not enough data and so you relied on someone else's input. — Quk

You spoke about being "all-knowing", which is what I was responding to.

Now you're talking about access to the proper information, which proves my point that in order to make proper decisions means you need access to the proper information. You only realized you made the wrong decision after you have access to more information.

Now that you and I have had that type of experience of being lied to by another human being, wouldn't that make you more skeptical of what people say? Wouldn't that make you less likely to be manipulated by faulty information in the future?

For members of a political party, they are trained to believe that everything their side says is scripture and everything the other side says is heresy. Political parties are like religions in this regard where you do not question your party or religion or else you are excommunicated (canceled).

I already explained it with the analogy of the computers. How each computer responds to someone pressing the "A" key is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by someone pressing the "A" key.

How the human body (including the brain) responds to some given stimulus is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by the stimulus. — Michael

If that were the case, we would all be responding the same way, but we don't so your theory does not fully explain what we observe. How is saying some words and getting no reaction the same as pressing the "A" key and getting a reaction? Some people do not riot when hearing those words, which is not equivalent to your example of typing "A" on a keyboard and getting some kind of reaction. It would be more like typing an "A" and nothing happens. You might think the computer or keyboard is malfunctioning. Is a person that hears some inciting words and is not incited to participate in a riot malfunctioning?

Every essay takes the position it takes on the subject it discusses. The author talking about Kierkegaard makes no appeal to Schopnehauer. The one discussing past and present doesn't get into a critique of Judaism. An op-ed piece on cinema hardly mentions what's wrong with painting and a recipe for bean soup doesn't even consider pumpkin pie. — Vera Mont

Exactly. And I am not off topic discussing authoritarianism and libertarianism in a thread titled: The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox. This is a typical tactic of not agreeing with what said but instead of making an argument against what was said, you assert it is off-topic. Well, my posts have not been deleted for being off-topic, so.... next.

Where does the author say this essay is intended to solve a problem? Or the relative size of evils? — Vera Mont

I don't know. Why would the author write the essay asserting that Libertarianism is actually Authoritarianism unless they planned on inciting others to do something about it? The whole essay is a straw-man. It appears to be an authoritarian describing libertarianism. It's like a man describing what it is like to be a woman.

It's not bashing the ideology; it's showing its shortcomings as a philosophy. It points out the gaps between the stated tenets of the ideology, political theory and social reality, as illustrated by some high-profile figures who claim to be its embodiment. — Vera Mont

Just because someone claims to be a woman does not mean they are a woman. Just because someone claims to be a Libertarian does not mean they are. One is a woman by the way they are born. One is a Libertarian but the way one behaves and treats others with a healthy understanding and respect that others have the same freedoms as you do.

Any unbiased, intelligent person understands that ALL politicians lie and manipulate the facts. I have already pointed out that both Dems and Reps hide their authoritarian tendencies by covering them up with their Libertarian tendencies. Just as you telling me what pronouns I have to use is not an expression of freedom and inclusion. It is a form of authoritarianism. Just as the right likes to talk about religious freedom but that is just cover talk for Christianity is the state's religion and there is no separation of church and state. So the essay appears to be describing the two-party system, not Libertarianism.

The political parties don't want you thinking for yourself, and people typically join political parties to be told what to think because thinking for yourself and doing the research is difficult and time-consuming.

You’ve just gone down rabbit holes of madness arguing minutiae with some of the more esoteric posters. — Malcolm Parry

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.

A biological woman who looks very much like a man. Has had sex change operation, double mastectomy, hormone treatment, etc. What restroom do you want her to use? — RogueAI

Using your own words, they are a biological woman, so use the women's bathroom. I've asked this before: Why the "biological" qualifier for woman and man? Is there another type of woman or man that is not biological? What about a woman that looks like a man (has short hair, wears pants, and does not wear make-up, had a double mastectomy as a result of cancer) but identifies as a woman? Which bathroom should she use?

Social business as in. . . having a job interview. . . eating with someone. . . talking. . .

Are you obsessed on a daily basis with assessing is the person I'm talking to really XX/XY chromosome or are they faking it? If you say yes you are sexist. . . literally. — substantivalism

No. I'm merely pointing out that there are cases where it is important to know what sex someone is (mating and medical contexts), and you seem to think that knowing another's sex is never relevant in any context. Answer this question: A woman masquerading as a man walks into a gay bar and fools a gay man into believing they are a man. Is that unethical?

It's actually therefore inefficient if a toilet can support multiple roles and most bathrooms I've gone into that are only for one sex. . . single person. . . only have had that in numerous businesses.

What about a toilet removes efficiency? Left up the lid and suddenly its a urinal.

With it is the increased sense of privacy that I do value. — substantivalism

I don't know. Why were urinals invented? I did ask that and you did not answer. Why are hands-free toilet flushing, sinks, soap dispensers and air dryers were invented - to limit the spread of germs. If you like touching a public toilet seat to lift it up, that is your prerogative, but something tells me that you were one of those people that insisted everyone get a vaccine and wear a mask during Covid, sooo....

Identify as what? — substantivalism

Does modifying your body make you the think you are trying to emulate? Does having a "sex-changing" operation make you the opposite sex? Is a hole between a man's legs, that he has to use medical grade stents to keep it from closing, a vagina? Yes, or no?

Yes they can. . . they get to tell you how they want themselves to be referred as. . . or talked to. Why do you think we ask people what THEIR name is and don't just make something up on the spot?

Basic Human communication demands this as such. — substantivalism

Not when they way they want me to speak does not reflect my own views, it reflects theirs. My view is that men and women are adult human males and females, not some psychological or social construct. We are free to disagree and go our separate ways. Neither has to submit to the will of the other. The problem is that delusional people always seek to affirm their delusions by trying to force others into participating in their delusion and will appear offended when others refuse to participate.

Wisdom also recognizes we need generalized categories or universals to designate characteristics and compare ourselves to others. Otherwise you wouldn't know what words or concepts to designate who you are. . . if you didn't contrast yourself with others. — substantivalism

Exactly my point in that "woman" and "man" need to be used consistently and not have open-ended meanings so that we know how to use the terms to refer to ourselves. You said that having a nose-ring and tattoos is an expression of one's sex/gender. I asked which sex/gender does having a nose-ring and tattoos make me? You didn't answer. You don't answer a lot of pertinent questions.

Not one contributor has addressed what it means to be a woman in 2025. — Malcolm Parry

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

Can’t we, in a free society always just ignore the majority if we want? It may take courage, but the majority shouting down the minority is still immensely better than a government silencing the individual and forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do.

Screw the majority! Be bold. And screw the government too. In a truly totalitarian state, you can’t say “screw the government” or really, you can only say what the government and the majority it allows to exist says. Majority and government become a monopoly on speech under a government that regulates speech.

The media sucks. The majority is really loud and intrusive. Those are not the same issue as the government regulating speech. — Fire Ologist

What does one mean by the "majority shouting down the minority"? What is a real world example? In a democracy isn't the majority the same as the government? Isn't that why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic where states are both equally represented in the Senate and represented by population in the House?

The ideas of the majority and the minority should be subject to logical criticism. I should have just as much of a right to question the majority as I would have to question the minority.

Speech is regulated not just by having laws saying "You can't say this or that or you go to jail", but by limiting access to information. Less information about an issue means less can be said about the issue.

It seems to me that suppressing information might be easier for the majority than the minority. I see the Democrats/Republican two-party system as the majority and independents as the minority in this respect where alternate candidates are not given the same screen time as the majority when the number of independents is growing and now outnumbers either Democrats or Republicans.

You are just talking about how hard it is to be good voter and to determine who there is to vote for, and be a free citizen, and avail yourself of your freedom of speech, to dig deep and make the above observations and stay as free from undue influence as you can. — Fire Ologist

I'm talking about how certain political groups limit our freedom of choice by only telling us part of the story, and part of the story they do tell us is inaccurate. Access to accurate information = freedom. It is access to the relevant information that frees you from being manipulated by propaganda and what provides the ammunition to argue against what someone else is saying. If the only information you have is what someone tells you, are you free to argue against them? Do you believe everything everyone says, or only what certain people say, and is there some common thread among those that you always reject what they say vs always accepting what they say?

es, it's trivial. But some people don't get it or don't want to get it and rather play rhetorical games; they categorically round any influence down to zero. They do this by saying any free speech is just an "offering". I think this is just a rhetorical shift at the surface while the substance underneath remains the same: Call the emotional Pepsi-advertisement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the false fire alarm an "offering" -- its influence remains; call any incitement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the training program of the football coach an "offering" -- the coach's influence remains.

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be all-knowing, so you can at any time detect whether the message you hear is nonsense or not.

Now who on this forum is all-knowing? — Quk

I'll add a second point:

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be -- like a machine -- completely free of emotions, so nobody can make you feel happy or sad; no comedian and no joke can make you laugh, and when your beloved one is dying you can't cry, and no film or music can change your mood.

Now who on this forum is cold as ice? — Quk

Wrong and wrong.

I don't need to know the expansion rate of the universe to know if Joe Biden was mentally incompetent while President or not or to know if Trump really is guilty of the crimes he was accused of or if it was political considering the timing and location. I just need access to the relevant information, not all information.

I can influence my computer to perform specific actions, like which letters appear on the monitor by typing specific keys on my keyboard. Does that not qualify as a causal influence?

You failed to address my point about the impact someone's speech has on a specific act, like eating a pill, rioting or stampeding people in a theater, as being an either-or situation rather than a varying situation. So I am now rejecting your assertion that there is variation. Defend that instead of going on about trivial issues.

Why, in an essay about one ideology would the author be criticizing another ideology? Shouldn't the essay be about what the author says it's about? There will be plenty of critics to drag in completely unrelated topics. — Vera Mont

If the author does not want to appear biased then they would take a more objective position. By focusing on the lesser of the two "evils", your intent does not appear to be to solve the problem they are showing but to simply bash one ideology.

This is why I asked:

What would real world examples of radical individualism and radical institutionalism look like?

I gave an example of radical individualism as a hermit. How does a hermit's choice to live in the Canadian or Alaskan wilderness affect you the life you choose to live? How does that compare to the influence radical institutionalism would have on your life's choices? — Harry Hindu

It seems to me that, while both extreme, one is worse than the other, and the worse one is not the one the author is focused on.

Ok, but now I've moved on to ask about why there is a difference and to question the validity that there even is a variance. Read the rest of the post you quoted and the post after that.

It is not so much an Authoritarian Liberty Paradox, but rather an Authoritarian Liberty Hypocrisy. — RussellA

:up:
Which is exactly what Democrats and Republicans are doing. Neither wants to appear authoritarian because in a culture that values freedom and individualism over authoritarianism, that would look ugly. So they have to run cover for their authoritarian stances on some issues by talking almost exclusively about their libertarian views on the other issues and their opponents authoritarian views on those other issues. Both parties share authoritarian and liberal tendencies but only the libertarian rejects all authoritarian tendencies.

However, remember that pointing out your chromosomes to someone isn't how we naturally do social business. — substantivalism

We typically don't have to because the other more obvious male and female sexual characteristics occur almost always with the male and female chromosomes.

Mating is a type of "social business" and in a culture where our bodies are covered with clothing, we have agreed that females and males dress in distinct ways to be able to find an appropriate mate in a way that allows us to express our sexual orientation. Is a man that has sex with a woman that thinks she's a man gay or straight?

Do you want to know what I saw in the bathroom of my sex at the park yesterday? A single toilet and no urinal. . . because that is all that is needed even for us with sharp shooters. So if we are talking ability and biological ease then there is nothing much more or less needed for someone to do their business. Aside from a changing station for families, a tampon dispenser as was present at all mixed sex use bathrooms at my university, or a larger stall with bars to assist individuals. — substantivalism

Sure, the toilet is the catch-all. But for men, using a urinal is typically more efficient (it takes less time). If it didn't then why were urinals invented in the first place?

1) Some or even most biological features at this point are extremely malleable in light of current technology, cultural acceptance, trends, or personal choice. — substantivalism

Sure, but the question is, does changing those features actually make you what you claim to identify as?

Did this man's modifications make him a tiger?


Is a hole between a man's legs, that he has to use medical grade stents to keep it from closing, a vagina?

Exactly. . . so we didn't pull the vague family resemblance terms 'woman' or 'man' in common practice/language from our a*%. — substantivalism

But that is what the trans-community is saying - that identifying as a man or a woman can come at a whim and is fluid - that a woman is a woman simply by deciding to be one.

It seems your desire for personal freedom of choice, biological objectivity, and desire for gender neutrality seem to all conflict with each other. — substantivalism

They don't. You can dress as you want, but that doesn't mean you can tell me what I can or can't say. Your freedom to do as you choose stops when it limits the choices that others have. Only an authoritarian would disagree.

It is sexist and racist to put people in socially constructed boxes based on their sex and race when one's sexual and racial characteristics are not naturally connected to the socially constructed characteristics, but are arbitrarily connected.

Both. . . because you already agree to and so do I that they are extremely intertwined. Everything is biology. . . so a lot is on the table for one to want to mimic or modify. — substantivalism

Why not just be yourself - the person you were born to be? It was naturally determined that you are either male or female. Isn't wisdom understanding the difference between the things you can change and the things you can't?

Ok, so is wearing a nose-ring or having a tattoo an expression of one's gender or sex?
— Harry Hindu

Yes. — substantivalism

Really, which gender or sex is one expressing by getting a nose-ring or tattoo? I don't have either, so which gender or sex does that make me?

You want biological women who have fully transitioned to men and look like men to have to use the women's restroom??? — RogueAI

What does that even mean, "fully transitioned?" Did they have their chromosomes changed?

Now do you understand that influence has a variable magnitude, ranging from 0 to 99 % — Quk

Now that I think a bit further about it, in what way is there even a variance? Either you take the pill or you don't (whether it's tomorrow or next week). Either you riot or you don't. Either you stampede over people in a theater after hearing "Fire!", or you don't. So it seems more of either 100% or 0%, with no variance.

So it seems to me. Neither radical individualism nor radical institutionalism. — RussellA

What would real world examples of radical individualism and radical institutionalism look like?

I gave an example of radical individualism as a hermit. How does a hermit's choice to live in the Canadian or Alaskan wilderness affect you the life you choose to live? How does that compare to the influence radical institutionalism would have on your life's choices?

Now do you understand that influence has a variable magnitude, ranging from 0 to 99 %. That's what I meant to say. — Quk

Well, you wrote this:

And you're not saying that the influencer has always no influence at all. — Quk

Isn't that what I just showed that there are times where the "influencer" had no influence at all?

If that is what you meant to say then why did you not include the 3rd example? It seemed to me that you were unwilling to acknowledge that there was a 0%. Michael appears to not recognize this simple fact either.

I would not be influenced by what Mavis said because I don't believe in the existence of hell. If Mavis told you that "If you don't take the pill a unicorn will come and trample you in your bed tonight.", would you be influenced to take the pill, even just 1%?

But the fact that there is variation is trivial. WHY is there a variation? Is there some common theme where those that are influenced more share some common characteristic as opposed to those that are influenced only a little or none at all? I think there is and it is access to all the relevant information regarding some issue or event. The freedom to access all information that enables us to make informed decisions about what is said is what enables free speech.

What is the subject of this essay?

The author's thesis states that "This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose"

However, in section 3, the author makes a strong case that radical individualism is a coherent political philosophy.

The individualism examined here is not the moderate liberalism of dignity and mutual recognition. It is a more radical variant: anti-institutional, absolutist in its commitment to negative liberty and rooted in a metaphysical image of the self as a pre-social moral unit. This view rejects collective responsibility and treats the individual as both the source and end of all ethical concern.

The author concludes that radical individualism is a coherent political philosophy, even if it is flawed.

Radical individualism offers a seductive vision. It promises a world without interference, where each person is the sole author of their fate, untouched by history, insulated from obligation and immune to the needs of others. It is, at first glance, a philosophy of dignity and moral clarity. A defence of the self against the claims of society.

The thesis in the introduction is at odds with the body and conclusion. — RussellA

Exactly. Was extreme collectivism also criticized? It seems to me that the answers lie between the two extremes - that we are individual members of a social species and that an individual can choose which collective they are a member of and to choose to not be a member of a group at all. Some people can choose to be hermits. How is their choice to be a hermit affecting others?

Representatives of the state only get to speak on behalf of the state. — Fire Ologist

Not in a government composed of two political parties where the political parties do not speak on behalf of the state, but on behalf of their party. When the party regulates the speech of their constituents by only providing partial information, your freedom to information is restricted and therefore your ideas would be restricted which effectively limits your speech. The party also regulates speech by ostracizing any party member that questions the party's claims. This is how political parties become a political construct of group-think.

Mavis says to Oscar: "Oscar, eat this pill or you end up in hell."


Example 1:

Oscar hates this pill, but he eats it anyway as he's very naive and afraid of hell.

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar almost 100 %. Almost, not fully, because Oscar still has a brain of its own.


Example 2:

Oscar replies: "No, I won't eat the pill now. Maybe tomorrow."

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar just a little because Oscar obviously declines the instruction, but maybe he'll reconsider tomorrow.


In short: Influence is not a binary matter of "all or nothing". Influence has a variable magnitude. That's what I mean. — Quk

You forgot the most important example.

Example 3:

Oscar replies: "No, I will never eat this pill because Mavis is full of shit and has a history of lying and manipulating others".

How much influence did Mavis have on Oscar here? Effectively, Mavis just made a bunch a sounds with his mouth as Oscar did not interpret those sounds as representing reality in any way.

Different in what relevant way? A plant is different to a computer, but that would be an insufficient justification to simply assert that the behaviour of plants is not causally influenced by external stimuli. You need to actually flesh out what human organisms have that other things don’t that allows us to (uniquely?) defy determinism. — Michael

I'm not trying to defy determinism. I'm embracing it. You simply aren't reading.

The difference lies in the reason why we observe a difference in behaviors when multiple people hear the same speech. For determinism to be true, which I believe it is, you have to provide a theory to explain what we observe in that multiple people react differently to the same speech. What is your theory? How do you explain what we observe?

This is just biological reductivism that nukes all of culture, society, and personal senses of identity. — substantivalism

No, it isn't. You're conflating human's social nature with their sexual nature.

I'm sure if you went and asked these XX chromosome 'people' that they would have a lot to say about who they are and what they mentally take part in. You will find features statistically significant and present in splitting among male or female individuals. You will also find that groups of the same individuals of the same sex will create groups of their own. — substantivalism

Right, which is to say that the group's membership is dependent upon one's sex, no different than saying that bathrooms are dependent upon one's sex. I am not saying that being a member of a group of all women makes you a woman, or that using the Women's bathroom makes you a woman. I am saying that being a woman or man is a biological reality and our cultural expectations are dependent upon this biological reality. It's not, "I am a woman because I use the Women's restroom". It is "I use the Women's bathroom because I am a woman". Do you see the difference? The expectation follows the biological reality, not the other way around because that would be sexist. The reality of being a woman or a man is not dependent upon which bathroom one uses, as I have already shown that men and women use each other's bathrooms in certain situations, and all of these situations are extraneous to affirming one's sex or gender.

Ergo. . . there are fundamental biological categories and this inevitably will lead to different social roles or cultural significance. — substantivalism

Sure, and every culture is different, which means that the social and cultural roles are dependent upon those biological realities. It does not shape those biological realties. Dependency is a type of relationship between two separate things where one depends on the a priori existence of the other - meaning you wouldn't have expectations of sex or gender if there was no such thing as sex and gender.

Why does anyone attempt to mirror those around them? Desire for group involvement? Personal sense of self image acceptance? — substantivalism

What are they attempting to mirror, another's sex or gender?

People have been slowly growing in the ability and desire to modify their bodies to fit their own senses of self-image acceptance for a while now. — substantivalism

Ok, so is wearing a nose-ring or having a tattoo an expression of one's gender or sex? What identity are they expressing by getting a nose-ring or a tattoo? Am I suppose to refer to someone differently because they have a nose-ring or tattoo?

Correct. I'm not saying that the influencer has 100 % control. And you're not saying that the influencer has always no influence at all. Influence varies. Sometimes it's greater than zero. But it's never 100 %. — Quk

What do you mean by "It's never 100%"?

Does 100% of everyone that is not deaf hear spoken words? Yes.

Does 100% of everyone that hears the same words react the same way? No.

Explain the difference.

The fact that you either do not have or refuse to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by these examples from the so-called 'left' that would in any way approach the wrongdoings by the examples of the so-called 'right' is evidence of something off-topic. — Vera Mont

You're moving the goal-posts. You asked:

I wonder about that assertion without some context and citation. — Vera Mont

in response to this:

The left was willing to accept money from Trump and accept Musk's electric vehicles until they decided to run for president as a Republican and supported a Republican president. The outrage is selective. — Harry Hindu

I provided the links to show that Trump supported Democrats. Now you are asking for links to the wrong-doings of Democrats. :roll:

I showed that you are unwilling to do your own research and to question your own party - effectively your are a group-thinker. The fact that the Democrats and Republicans ostracize any party member that questions the party just shows how deep group-think is embedded in both political parties.

In the sense that they both follow the same natural laws of cause and effect; yes. The human brain is just more complicated. It's not as if it contains some immaterial soul that is able to put a stop to one causal chain and then begin a completely independent one. — Michael

The point of all of this is make clear that we should be politically free to say whatever words we want to, and to mean whatever we think we mean by those words in the context of adults discussing public policy, civil and criminal law…

…Words, meaning, and action need to be three separate things.
— Fire Ologist

Words, meaning and action need to be three separate things in order to protect the right to free speech from its being abridged by the government, but to allow the government to punish actions that reasonably follow certain speech in certain context. — Fire Ologist

Free speech is not using scribbles in any way you want. If we were to do that, how would you hope to communicate with others if you simply decided to use a string a scribbles in a way that the reader or listener is not privy to? What would you hope to accomplish? All you would be doing from the reader's and listener's perspective is drawing scribbles and making sounds - as if you were using a foreign language to them.

Free speech is not even saying anything you want without repercussions. That would be authoritarianism, not free speech, as the state would be able to say whatever they want without anyone questioning it, or to limit access to information that would enable others to make informed decisions and criticisms about what some authority is saying. Free speech is the capacity to question and criticize what others say, and to not simply accept whatever someone says.

I am being honest. Determinism applies to human organisms just as it applies to every other physical object and system in the universe. We're not special in any relevant way. — Michael

I never said, nor implied, that we are special. I said we are different, and that is the difference.

I wonder about that assertion without some context and citation. — Vera Mont

There's plenty that can be found with a 30 second Google search. The fact that you can't do this yourself is evidence that you aren't willing to question your own party. Group-thinking is, by definition, the antithesis of progressive-thinking.

Donald Trump was once a registered Democrat and party donor. So why did he jump ship?

History of Donald Trump's political donations, 1989-2015

Most of Donald Trump's Political Money Went To Democrats — Until 5 Years Ago

So, his habits changed around 2011, around the time when this DEI BS started, and many Dems have "jumped ship" since then as well with Karine Jean-Pierre being the most recent.

Notice that he would donate to both Dems and Reps, which is what every smart business person would do since we have a two-party system where power shifts from one party to the other, and is evidence that it really doesn't matter which one is in power as they both work together (despite what they tell you) to ensure the status quo is maintained.

Trump is not right-wing. He supported the abortion bill and recreational marijuana amendments in Florida, but was thwarted by the real right-winger, Ron DeSantis who possibly used tax-payer funds to run commercials that lied about what the amendments actually said.

In the sense that they both follow the same natural laws of cause and effect; yes. The human brain is just more complicated. It's not as if it contains some immaterial soul that is able to put a stop to one causal chain and then begin a completely independent one. — Michael

And no one is using the phrase, "immaterial soul" except you, so you are straw-manning.

In the sense that they follow the same natural laws, yes, they are the same, but that isn't what we're talking about, so another straw-man.

You are simply incapable of being intellectually honest.

Fear of a prolonged electricity outage could be considered a social construct — Outlander

Provide a citation that defines a social construction as such. What you described could just as easily be categorized a delusion. Fear of the government and conspiracy theories would qualify as social constructs using this weird example of yours. What makes the construct a social one, if not an agreement between a (vast) majority of the members of a society?

If gender is not a social construct in the sense that society is saying, "you are a female so use the women's restroom" then why are trans-people trying to modify their biology in an effort to conform with the expectation?

Expectation is fine. No one is forced to behave a certain way other than the basic codified laws. — Outlander

Which is to say that using one bathroom or the other, or dressing one way or the other, does not affirm anything.

Sexual behaviors are limited to a particular scope based on one's physical characteristics. Men inseminate women and women bear children. Women breast-feed their children and menstruate. Men can urinate standing up without getting piss all over their legs and pants. That's pretty much it. Anything else would be a category error.

NOS4A2 absolutely is. He says such nonsense as: — Michael

You have a history of cherry-picking and straw-manning other's arguments, so I don't trust you haven't done the same here. Your reputation precedes you.

He also just clarified here:

To be clear, I have never denied that the light from writing or the sound waves from spoken words do not “causally influence” the body. — NOS4A2

Which is exactly like arguing that I do not cause the bomb to explode because my finger lacks the necessary kinetic energy; that the bomb caused itself to explode by operating its own movements and utilizing its own energy. — Michael

So you think that the internal workings of a bomb are equivalent to the internal workings of the human brain?

Michael believes a "transgender man" is a proper title that accurately describes a human being who wishes to identify as a gender that he was not born as. Whether this is a will, whim, or some deep longing and horrible desire that we are horrible people for preventing, he has yet to answer. — Outlander

Michael has defined gender is a social construct.

A social construct is defined as an agreement between members of a society.

Gender as a social construct would be the agreement between members of a society on how each sex behaves.

To identify as a one gender or the other would be identifying as an expectation society has of the sexes.

How is an expectation, or agreement among members of a society, an identity?

The expectation is not that using one bathroom or the other makes you, or affirms, you are a woman or a man. It is based on an understanding there are these biological realities of male and female a priori to the social construction and it is the social construction that is dependent upon these biological realities to exist.

Society is not saying that wearing a dress makes you a woman. Society is saying that you are a female and we expect you to behave this way because you are a female.

I agree. But you are making the absurd claim that a word's causal influence "ends" at the ear, and that is simply not how physics works. — Michael

No one is saying that isn't the case. The question is what goes on between the word entering the ear and the response that follows.

The closer the result is in relation to the influencer's intention, the more influence is done. — Quk

And it logically follows that if different people have different responses to the same stimuli then the influencer's intention is not the closest thing to the response of the listener - the listener's interpretation of the words and the speaker is.