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.

I'm tired of going in circles with you. I've already answered the question using your own definition of gender and you are still having a difficult time.

We went over this in our characteristics of sex. Artificial parts do not qualify as actual sex parts, just as a dildo does not qualify as a penis. A hole between one's legs that has be kept open with medical grade stents is not a vagina.

So you are saying that a transgender man who has had genital surgery should continue to use the women's bathroom because his sex is female? Even though he has a surgically-constructed phallus? — Michael

That's what I've been asking. Does having genital, or a double mastectomy surgery change your sex, or your gender? Yes, or no?

It's not a deflection. It's an unwillingness on your part to be intellectually honest.

If the social construct states that bathrooms are generally divided by sex, then you use the bathroom that corresponds with your sex. To identify as the social construct is sexism. The bathroom does not affirm your sex. It only affirms you agree with the social construction.

Should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom? — Michael

The question was answered. Did having genital surgery change their sex? I asked the same question in my example of a woman with a double mastectomy.

You're being too cavalier with your use of the term "delusion". Those who believe in Christianity do not suffer from a psychosis.

And you appear to have missed the point. I am not saying that gender is like Christianity. I am providing an example of what it means to identify as belonging to a social construct because you seem to have some difficulty understanding this. — Michael

It was your (poor) choice to use Christianity as an example.

And I said that to identify as a social construct is sexist.

Is it incumbent on everyone else to fall into line with someone’s view of who they are?
— Malcolm Parry

If you want to be a decent person, then yes. Otherwise you're just an ass. — Michael

Yet you have described me in terms that I do not identify and I doubt that Malcolm identifies as an ass. Hypocrite.

So should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom because his sex is female?

Or should the transgender man who has had genital surgery use the men's bathroom because he has a surgically-constructed phallus?

Will you ever just answer the question? — Michael

I already did but you've been cherry-picking.

According to your definition of gender as a social construct, gender would be the agreement among members of a society that females use the women's bathroom and males use the men's bathroom. In other words, gender is an expectation, or an agreement, that the sexes, not gender, behave in a certain way. Gender would be the agreement - the social construct, and sex - the biological construct. So, I'm not sure that you really understand what a social construction is. To conflate the social construct with the biological construct would be sexism.

Which bathroom should a woman that had a double-mastectomy from cancer use? Did her sex change because she had a double mastectomy? Does having a double mastectomy change one's gender (society's expectation about which bathroom she uses)? No, so she uses the women's bathroom, but she can use the men's bathroom in certain situations, like when there is a long line at the women's bathroom or to assist her elderly father.

Gender identity is to gender as being a Christian is to Christianity. — Michael

Isn't this what I said before in equating trans-genderism to a delusion. Both trans-genderism and Christianity are forms of mass-delusion. So nice of you to finally get the point.

Even the middle-ground Clintons and Pelosi are nowhere near equal in self-service to Trump and Musk. — Vera Mont

Give me a break. 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.

'Property' no. Animals compete and fight for things they need and want; they have no 'right' to them. But, according to libertarians,
the state is presumed coercive unless confined to protecting contracts and property.
— Moliere
Other animals have concept of 'state' and 'contract'. — Vera Mont

...which is a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be a libertarian. How easily one forgets that the state is made of up elitist individuals that have made their own contracts among themselves and write the laws to serve themselves. They maintain their control through favoritism and nepotism.

Because of the law. Guys who are stronger and better armed than the millionnaire still aren't allowed to take his stuff. — Vera Mont

Sure. That's why nations sign alliance agreements - contracts to protect the territorial integrity of other nations. There is nothing unnatural about individuals seeking alliances with other like-minded individuals or groups. The thinks treats everyone as a greedy criminal in that we need to control everyone's behavior when the reality is that most people respect each other and laws are really only needed for the select few who aren't happy unless they're telling other people how to live their lives. The right is no different. Both extremes love their Big Brother.

To be able to even understand the concept of language-use means that you have to be a realist. You have to have reached the stage of development where you obtain a sense of "object permanence". We are all born solipsists, and around 8-12 months we develop the idea of object permanence which is when we convert to realism. It is around this time when we start using words rather than just babble.

So language-use is dependent upon the idea of realism - that there is an external world that your senses only partially acquire. We use language to convey events and ideas to others whose sense's would not allow them to be aware of what it is we are conveying. This is why it would be redundant to convey something in which the listener was already aware of or knew.

There are words, and separately, there are what the words signify or mean. The context in which a word is used is helpful to know what the word signifies or means. Context helps define the meaning, but the word remains just the word, separate from its meaning. Like “bank” in one context clearly has nothing to do with a river. And words are just scribbles and not even words if we don’t speak the language; and rules of grammar and such are all part of the context which allows words to convey meaning. — Fire Ologist

There are scribbles or sounds, and separately, there are what the scribbles/sounds signify or mean. What makes a scribble/sound a word is the rules of interpretation you learned in grade school. Just look at, or listen to, the "words" of a language you don't know and you will only see scribbles and hear sounds. It is the rules of interpretation that turn those scribbles into words.

You didn't just learn vocabulary, you learned grammar - how to arrange a string of scribbles to convey an idea as opposed to vocabulary which is the rule for deciding which words to use. Both are used in unison to convey an idea. Think about it like this: a word by itself only conveys part of the meaning, whereas the sentence it is used in conveys the whole meaning. This is why you cannot always capture what someone means when they use a single word, but you can when they use more words, as in using the word in a sentence.

But the point is, words are not meanings, — Fire Ologist

I would need to you define "meaning", but honestly I'd much rather talk about free speech in a Free Speech thread.

I mean, if you have convinced a person to do something, you have clearly influenced that person. Yes, that person is responsible. But you are partially responsible too. — Quk

How so, when those same words spoken to a different person would produce a different result?

Yes, because bathrooms are divided by sex and not gender.
— Harry Hindu

Why? — Michael

I also said that women have used the men's bathroom and men have used the women's bathroom, but you keep cherry-picking. So generally speaking, bathrooms are divided by sex and using one bathroom or the other does not affirm one's gender. It doesn't even affirm one's sex. Social constructions do not affirm anything other than that you live in a particular culture.

Using one bathroom or another is a social construction. A social construction based on one's sex, not gender. The way you speak of gender as a social construction means that gender would be a society's expectations of the sexes - that they use the appropriate bathroom based on their sex. So the social construction states that males use the men's bathroom and females use the women's bathroom. The rules are only enforced when someone enters the other bathroom for reasons other than to simply piss or shit.

No, it's not. That's why we have such terms as "gender non-conforming". — Michael

What are they not conforming to if not the social construction? It is their feeling, or psychology that is not conforming to the social construction, and it is the social construction that you are defining as gender, not their personal feeling that is the anti-thesis of the what is accepted socially.

For me, meaning is the relationship between some cause and its effect. The existence of scribbles on this screen would be an effect with the cause being your idea and your intent to communicate it. The scribbles refer to, or mean, your idea.

The tree rings in a tree stump mean the age of the tree because of the way the tree grows throughout the year. So words are not the only way that meaning manifests, but is one way that it does.

Now, if you want me to understand your idea, you have to know certain things, like which language I speak, and the level of understanding I have with that language. You have to use symbols I understand, or else what is the point in drawing scribbles on the page? Do you think I am going to understand you, or do you think it is an efficient use of time and words to just yell, "fire!"?

If you want to know what I meant by those words, you would have to ask me for more words or better pointing. — Fire Ologist

And this proves my point, no?

These adjectives are supposed to describe a certain value range. What does "hot" mean? 30 degrees or 100 degrees? What is violent? A kick in the face or calling someone "idot"? How fast is fast? — Quk

Context is needed in all these instances. We only communicate in one word sentences when no other words are needed to provide context. Words that have more than one definition are used with other words to provide context.

This is like asking how can we learn a language when language is a social construction. — Michael

No, it's not.

I'm bringing it up because you object to transgender men using the men's bathroom and transgender women using the women's bathroom. — Michael

Yes, because bathrooms are divided by sex and not gender.

It's really that simple. It is you that is conflating gender as a social construction and sex by asking about bathrooms.

I have already pointed out that women use the men's bathroom in certain circumstances and men using the women's bathroom in certain circumstances, so it doesn't matter which one someone uses, as long as they don't believe that using one or the other is affirming anything other than humans need to take a piss and shit from time to time. Just as wearing long hair and earrings isn't affirming a gender either because both sexes can wear either, or both, and it has no bearing on their gender or sex.

Your bathroom argument is like you keep asking if it's okay for a man to have long hair and earrings. Sure it is, but doing so does not affirm their gender since both women and men wear earrings and have long hair. It's a red herring.

(When I say “bank” some might hear “river’s edge” and others might hear “building with money”. This is because words are distinct from meanings.) — Fire Ologist

Wrong. No one ever simply walks around and says, "bank". "Bank" is often used with other words and it the other words that provide the context of the meaning of "bank". The issue is in thinking that only individual words carry all the meaning when other words often change, or clarify the meaning of the other words in a sentence. So you probably shouldn't attribute meaning to words by themselves, but to the sentence they are part of. Just as a cell has no meaning on it's own. It's meaning manifests itself in it's relation with other cells, forming an organism.

Not sure I understand your question grammatically. Could you express your thought in smaller pieces?

I'm not saying that there is no internal force. I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force.

In the first second of your life, did you already understand English due to an internal genetic program or did you learn English from external sources? — Quk

Of course not, but I did have the capacity to learn a language, and some have a better capacity than others, which manifests in the way they use a language. It could also be that some might have had better teachers than others. So, the issue is trying to discern which parts are external influences and which are internal, right?

I have never denied that there are external influences. It is the others that deny that there is anything internal that can process those external influences for its own purposes.