I mean if you thought gender is exclusively biological sex, then what could 'gender-neutral' even mean? Cutting little boys dangly bits off and giving half of them to girls? This is how absurd your position is. — Baden

No it means to not treat people unequally based on their gender/sex. We have that and is what I and Hanover has argued, but you are willfully ignorant.

Listen, please. It's not my definition. It's not a left-wing definition. It's the standard definition. It's what the word means and how it's used in every discussion in the area on which the OP is focused. If you don't want to recognize it fine, but in that case you won't be able to communicate on this topic. — Baden

Listen to yourself. If it's not your definition then why are you using it? I never said it was a left-wing definition. I said it was an incoherent definition. Can we do without the politics at the moment and just deal the logic of what you are saying?

Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. — Baden

My explanation wasn't complicated at all. It was an explanation about the implications of your own definition - something you don't seem to think about.

The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. — Baden

This part shows that "gender" is arbitrary and therefore meaningless independent of some subjective idea of gender. I could make up any identity and call it "gender". It also contradicts the previous sentence in your definition.

Looks like something you need to read and reflect on, Baden. As I have shown, it is you, unenlightened, andrew and fdrake who are oppressing trans people with your definition gender and your ideas of gender-neutrality. It is you who are willfully ignorant of that fact.

We generally do not need definitions to talk plainly about things, and certain words - like language, game, object, culture, ability and so on are quite resistant to exhaustive and exclusive characterisations/definitions. — fdrake

If we aren't using the same definitions then we are simply talking past each other, which is a waste of my time.

Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. — WHO

See my reply to andrew on this page.

and you are resisting the idea that being 'gender blind' actually 'very often reinforces gender-based discrimination'. — fdrake

Strange. I thought it would be different for a gender-neutral society. A gender-neutral society would want to be blind to gender - not notice it - not refer to it - not make the distinction between genders (not use gender-specific pronouns). To be color-blind is to treat others equally regardless of their race. To be gender-blind is to treat people equally regardless of their gender.

For me gender is a characteristic of an individual, or more specifically the sex of the individual. For you and the left (I should let everyone know that I'm not on the right. I consider myself as a-political), it is the characteristic of a society and is the antithesis of how a transperson uses the term - to refer to a characteristic about themselves as an individual.

Well it is an attack on stereotypes, not on individuals. — unenlightened

What is a stereotype of not the idea, or a belief, that a person has? Stereotypes don't exist independent of people's minds, so it would be an attack on a person's beliefs, or ideas. If you're an idealist, then you are your ideas. I think that there are a lot of people who don't integrate all of their ideas (metaphysical, political, scientific, moral, etc.) into a consistent whole, which is why we get inconsistencies across many different topics - something I have tried to point out but then my posts get deleted for being "off-topic".

I'm surprised that nobody has answered it, because I believe it is very simple. Perhaps you didn't ask it quite as directly before — andrewk

Well, it wasn't in the form of a question. It did make a direct statement that "gender" hasn't been defined as anything coherent or consistent.

'Gender' identifies with which of society's two standard sets of behavioural expectations the person most complies, or society expects them to comply.

Sex is biological. Gender is a societal expectation based on sex. — andrewk

Thank you.

So "gender" is how others treat you. In other words, it has to do with the behavior of others, and/or the ideas of others, but not you as a person. Based on your definition, "sex" is a characteristic of you and "gender" is a characteristic of a society or culture. So it doesn't make sense for a person to say that they want to "change their "gender". It would make more sense to say that they want to change society's "gender" - which is what gender neutrality is trying to do.

Another thing is that "womanhood" would refer to how others, or society treats females, not some feeling that a person has. It wouldn't make sense (using your definition) for a transgender to say "I feel like a woman" with "woman" referring to some feeling that they have. To a transgender, "womanhood", or "gender" is a feeling about themselves, not an expectation of others. The expectation is the antithesis of their gender.

I agree with Simone de Beauvoir that gendered expectations are oppressive and that it is worth working to eradicate them. That will take a very long time, and will encounter resistance, but it is worth the effort. — andrewk

What are some of the expectations of the United States culture that are enforced by laws? Don't we already have laws for the unequal treatment of anyone? What more do you want? It seems to me that by changing the way society expects different people to behave, you'd be changing society's gender (according to your definition).

Some people use 'gender' as a synonym for 'sex', and even prefer it because it sounds less rude. I think that is a mistake and, wherever possible refuse to fill in a field in a form marked 'gender' (or choose the 'prefer not to disclose' or 'indeterminate' option if there is one), while I am perfectly happy to indicate my sex. — andrewk

But I thought this was all about trying to not be rude and offensive and here you come along and say that it's okay to be rude and offensive. You're basically saying that people need to get over the idea of words being offensive and that we should be able to use words that we choose despite how others might feel about it. I couldn't agree more.

Although I think it is a mistake, I confess that I made it for much of my life, before I became aware of the importance of the distinction. — andrewk

I think the way you're thinking about gender now is a mistake and the result of a mass delusion.

I would not presume to tell the person anything, as I am not in a position to understand their experience, much less give them advice. It has to be acknowledged that in some cases gender dysphoria of the sort you mention can come into conflict with de Beauvoir's vision of feminism, and this has caused some distress on both sides. So it behoves us to proceed carefully in areas that are vulnerable to that conflict. But I think it is possible to work to dismantle societal gender expectations without having to enter that conflict zone. — andrewk

So in a gender-neutral society you would only enforce heterosexuals to use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to each other but when referring to a trans person we have to use gender specific pronouns? Isn't that inconsistent for a gender neutral society? It also sounds to me like you are pushing for special treatment, not equal treatment, of trans people.

So it seems to me that both your definition of "gender" and your concept of gender-neutrality would actually go against transgenders' ideas about "gender" and would therefore be oppressive to them. And here you all have been bashing me for just asking questions - trying to get at something coherent and meaningful.

I assume you mean 'sex' rather than 'gender' here. — andrewk

Whats the difference? I've asked this several times. If was so easy and obvious then why can't anyone answer the question?

The way that this conversation relates to him is that in a world in which gender stereotypes were not promoted, this male would be free to wear lipstick, dresses, play with dolls and other activities that gender stereotypes claim are 'feminine' without fear of being judged or otherwise looked-down on by others. — andrewk

But a transgender woman (a man claiming to be a woman) does call those things feminine. It is the only way they know how to express their womanhood. Are you telling the trans person that those things are not characteristics of womanhood?

His ability to play American football well is one property that is part of a male gender stereotype (by the way, that stereotype no longer applies to English football (soccer) or Australian football, in which there are popular and prosperous female leagues), but implies nothing about other aspects of his behaviour. — andrewk

So in a gender neutral school the girls will play on the varsity tackle football team or wrestling team with the boys?

It isn't us who're misunderstanding gender, it's you who are misunderstanding language and normativity. — fdrake

I think I have firm grasp of language as I have been able accumulate 1.7k posts without much of a problem. The only problem I seem to be having is with the way in which you are using a certsin term - "gender". I have defined it as the equivalence of sex. You have yet to provide a consistent definition for your use of the term.

If someone calls thenselves a man and puts on pants while another calls themselves a man puts on a skirt, then they're confusing the wide variety of human behavior as gendered behavior. Humans of any gender can where whatever they like. It is different cultures that place limitations on behavior based on sex, or some other trait. That doesn't mean that you are a woman only when you wear a skirt. It just means that different ciltutes have different guidelines for how to behave. If a man can wear what he wants and a woman can wear what they want then that just makes those terms, "man" and "woman" meaningless. Wearing what you want isnt a man or woman thing. Its a human thing. The distinction is their sex organs that make a man a man or a woman, a woman.

What you don't realize is the trans people would be oppressed in a gender neutral environment. They want gender-specific pronouns applied to them - the opposite ones than their sex would lead one to use - and get hostile when you don't use the "right" one. Men who feel like women (whatever that means) want to wear a dress to express their womanhood, but in a gender neutral environment wearing a dress isn't a characteristic of womanhood and they wouldn't be a woman simply by wearing a dress. It would require more and you seem conrent just to accept theyre claim, yet I dont see you accepting other claims so easily based on somones feeling. Its nothing but illogical, emotional arguments being made from left's side.

The "argument from hypocrisy" is not an argument, but rather a thinly veiled ad-hominem. Would making the argument in Saudi Arabia or Iran somehow change the argument? — Echarmion

Mine wasn't an aruement from hypocrisy. I'm saying that the application of his arguement is inconsistent. He's essentially preaching to the choir. Think of it this way: you go to the emergency room with a splinter in your finger and a bullet in your chest. The doctor thinks that the splinter is the more serious threat and completely ignores the bullet wound. Unenlightened simply isn't being intellectually honest or consistent.

Gender neutrality allows that your linebacker, Stephen Hawking, unenlightened the gobshite weakling, and Bitter Crank the gay icon, are all equally men, and thus equally masculine, no matter how many women we are not stronger than, or how we choose to waste our time. — unenlightened

No. Nature and the fact that you have a penis, which is different than a woman, who has a vagina, is what allows you all to be equally men.

the answer was in the rest of my post. If a girl made the decision to go to wood shop and was prevented, we'd be hearing about it, so it seems to me that girls in general aren't fond of wood shop and that is just a general preference of girls, but some do prefer wood shop and no one is preventing them. So the answer to "How can you know" is you will hear someone claim that they aren't being treated equally and then due process takes effect in determining if there really was some form of unequal treatment - kind of like the system we already have now. It seems to me that you and un have no reason to be outraged (manufactured outrage). There is no crime here. Move along to Iran and state your case there where it might be more meaningful.

You missed the part where Hanover said that had a girl wished to take wood shop, she could have. You seem to want force girls to take wood shop.

If a girl decides not to take wood shop, is it a result of her own personal preference, or only because of some kind of societal pressure? How can you know? I havent heard of any stories where a girl that wanted to take wood shop couldn't.

If the Swedish teacher refuses to refer to the children as "boys" and "girls" implying that she would be referring to their gender, yet there are the words, "boys" and "girls" on the bathroom door, which refers to their sexual differences, then it would seem that the Swedish society itself is confused about the distinction between "sex" and "gender". This is why I would like to know about the signs on the bathroom door in a gender-neutral school. If it just has a picture of a figure in a skirt as opposed to one in pants, is that referring to one's sex or gender?

Nobody is suggesting teaching socialism the subject as Hanover implied. — Baden

Read it again. That was just an example he gave as to how we should handle teaching gender-neutrality to children. The fact of it's existence should be discussed and mentioned, but placing value judgements on political ideologies (gender-neutrality is part of a political ideology) is not what teachers should be doing, and I've already mentioned several times that your presumption of "gender" is wrong - which is why we have nonsensical discussions like this.

And we have considered it. We (or at least I) said that it can be experimented with in a private institution, not in the public schools. Because you aren't happy with that is what makes me think that you want more - that you want everyone to live the way you think is "right".

The paper says that the teacher doesn't refer to the children as "boys" and "girls", rather as "friends". Is that what the sign says on the bathroom door - "Friends"?

One might say that I'm confusing sex with gender. I say that I'm not. That would have to be settled before we could even begin to debate the topic in the OP. The fact is that, like the idea of "god", "gender" hasn't been defined as anything meaningful or coherent, other than being a synonym for "sex".

Right, I see, so you thought this conversation was about teaching Karl Marx to toddlers. — Baden

His link said nothing about Karl Marx. I think you and un, are the extremists here. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

When did you expect to teach gender-neutrality to a person - when they are old and grey - when they are already set in their ways? At what point in a person's development were you implying that we teach gender-neutrality? Where in these Swedish studies do they ever mention what they do with the bathroom situation in a "gender"-neutral school?

There are some issues that I thought that a gender-neutral school might encounter. For instance, how do they handle the bathroom situation? If the bathrooms are segregated, then is it still called a gender-neutral school?

What if Johnny tells his teacher that he feels like a girl and then puts on "girl" clothes? Does the teacher tell Johnny, "No, Johnny you don't have to be a girl to wear those clothes. Girls and boys can wear any clothes. You are not a girl. You are a male that can wear whatever clothes he likes." Is that appropriate response? Or do we tell "her" that you don't have to wear those clothes to feel like a girl, you can still wear those clothes you have on and be a "girl". What would be the appropriate response in a gender-neutral environment? Surely, pointing out the fact that someone is a male or female isn't the same as treating them differently because of that fact. How I treat someone is separate from what they are, or else what are we discussing if not one's identity as opposed to how they are treated as a result of what they are?

If we treat people the same, then we erase their individual identities. Treating people differently is what gives them their individual identity, right un?

So, who is your foil here? Who is saying that gender-neutral schools are necessarily and unqualifiedly a good thing? What your interlocutors are attempting is more like exploring the grounds on which the subject could be meaningfully debated. What we're getting back in return is an attempt to shut things down on the basis of buzzwords like "authoritarian socialism" etc. So, maybe they represent progress. Maybe not. Shouldn't we explore how we would find the answer to that question? — Baden

That is what the free market system is for. Make it an option for parents to try or not. It shouldn't be a requirement or even experimented with in the public school system.

What I don't get is how we would apply this gender-neutral idea to all these new "genders" that have cropped up. If we are to use gender-neutral pronouns then why were all of these other "gender" names invented as if we are suppose to recognize all these new "genders". What exactly is it that we are suppose to recognize if not the physical differences between males and females?

Speaking of shutting down meaningful debate - whenever the left's definition of "gender" is questioned, what we get back is an attempt to shut things down on the basis of buzzwords like "hater", or "bigot", or "prejudiced". The fact is that this very debate the OP is based on is questionable - namely your definition of "gender".

.. in a myriad of small ways, ignoring, ridiculing, one sex, and encouraging the other. By simply assuming that girls aren't usually as good at maths, or that they're not as interested, or that they won't need it, by not challenging such expressions when they are expressed by pupils. Again, one does not put the dominant ideology on the curriculum because it pervades the ethos of the school. One does not teach gender stereotypes because they pervade everything one teaches. Your maths question is silly, and I have given it far more notice than it deserves. — unenlightened

Many of these behaviors are instilled in people before they get to grade school. It starts in the home. Your first few years of life are where you adopt your norms for the rest of your life.

We currently have a common expectation of math skills for boys and girls. There is no difference in grading for boys and girls. I don't know what you're talking about. My daughter doesn't get graded nor do I expect less of her than from my boys in math.

I'm not saying that gender neutral schools are a bad thing. I'm saying that it shouldn't be pushed into all schools, just as I think a certain religious philosophy shouldn't be pushed in all schools. There should be options. That is why these new magnet and charter schools are a good thing. Privatization of the educational system with a common standard of expectation in math and English would open up a whole new world for Americans in how we educate our kids. More options are good. One way is not the best way for all.

Should we abolish one-gender schools? Or should that remain an option?

What I am wanting to contrast here is the American culture that seems to be highly gendered and gender prescriptive, and adversarial, with the playing down of gender differences in Sweden. It seems to me that the whole tone of the debate in the US is overheated and ideological, and is putting great pressure on folks to conform or else to rebel to an extreme. — unenlightened

You need some perspective. If American culture is highly gendered and adversarial and the debate is overheated and ideological, then what would you call what would happen if you suggested Iran change their culture? There are far worse extremes in the treatment of women vs men in other cultures - differences that I would call unequal. American culture is one of the most open cultures on the planet. You seem to think that any questioning of your ideas is overheated and ideological (and silly).

Hanover and I both answered that. The answer is that you don't. You leave each person to their own devices in deciding how to live their own lives. I thought a "liberal" would understand that. Human beings are already stressed by being in an environment that we aren't adapted for. This high-tech, cramped, fat and sugar-loaded environment isn't what we naturally evolved to live in. The environment has changed faster than our genetic adaptations can keep up. If you really want to get at the negative effects of culture on our natural conditioning, then overpopulation and the kinds of foods we eat are probably a much bigger problem than how we treat women vs men. The distinction between how the sexes are treated has existed since life split into two sexes and is as natural as every other behavior that defines the nature of that species. Not only that, but I pointed out that treating people differently doesn't necessarily entail treating them unequally.

The rest isn't a rant at all. It's pointing out the inconsistency of the "progressives" in their arguments for gender neutrality and their arguments for transgenderism. Again, what many call "liberals" and "progressives" aren't liberal or progressive at all. They are authoritarian socialists. Like you and un, they want to push a certain way of living on others.

Give me a break, Baden. You are the one who is prejudiced. I only want the truth. Sometimes you have to tell people that they are wrong (and that tends to hurt their feelings) about their assumptions to get at the truth. Since when is pointing out someone's inconsistencies an display of prejudice?

There is nothing prejudiced about it. The gist of the post is live how you want and leave others alone. How is that prejudiced, especially when Hanover is saying the same thing and you aren't getting upset about that (hypocrisy)? I even pointed out that the human race is one culture. How is that prejudice? Wipe the bullshit from your eyes.

Why don't you point out the problem areas of my post instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks? Of course that's much easier than actually having to address your inconsistencies that I pointed out. I'd love to see you address the first question in my post. That is a legitimate question, no?

How does one discover a unique aspect without relating it to the group? Even with DNA the uniqueness of the individual consists of usually a unique combination of traits that are shared in a population, or rarely a unique mutation, which is only found to be so by comparison with the group. That is to say, uniqueness is necessarily a position in a group, like a king in a country, or a runt in a litter. To say that I am unique is to say that I have X, and no one else has X, and it is only through the relation to everyone else that uniqueness can be seen. — unenlightened

And what MU has been telling you for a long time now is that groups, or categories, are arbitrary. To say that something is defined by its relation to some arbitrary category isn't a very good definition. What an individual is is an amalgam of certain features that is shares and doesn't share with other things. We arbitrarily group things based on certain similar features over others. There is simply a way things are and then how we group those things based on some arbitrary need. We have this need to put things in boxes, but that does not necessarily mean that these categories exist independent of the mind that creates them.

Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary, but it does not seem to me from what I have read so far, that this sort of gender neutrality in education has resulted in much trauma or confusion about gender identity. Whereas, the politicised gender war taking place in America does seem more poisonous. To be specific, I would suggest that the conflict exemplified in the links above puts pressure onto children to conform to or else to rebel against gender stereotypes that may result in an increase in identification as transgender and so on. — unenlightened

It's not gender neutrality that is the problem (at least from what we've seen so far). It is gender flipping that is the problem. When parents raise their kids as the opposite gender/sex, which is not a gender/sex neutral environment, then we have problems where the kids grow up to be adults that are now confused about their gender/sex (trans).

So how should women be treated differently? On this site too? — unenlightened

I don't know about this site, but when a pregnant woman walks in and all the seats are taken do you get up to give the pregnant woman your seat? Men can't get pregnant so...?

Treating people differently does not necessarily mean that you are treating them unequally.

Remember, I was arguing that preserving a culture is fundamentally wrong, because it can only be successful through oppression of its individual members. If you consider what unenlightened and I have discussed, you'll see that I've been arguing that the group (or culture), is a category of classification created for some purpose. The effort to preserve the correctness of the categorization (preserve the culture) can only be successful through suppression of the individual members' will to diversify. You seemed to think that preserving the categorization for the purpose of scientific observation was somehow acceptable, and fundamentally different from preserving the categorization for the purpose of slavery. — Metaphysician Undercover

All you are talking about is the political ideology of traditionalism or conservatism being imposed on a culture from outside of the culture. How is this any different from a culture defining itself as being traditionalist and imposing that on it's own people (kind of like how the Republicans are in the U.S.)? A political ideology isn't right or wrong. It is just a method of living. Other cultures have imposed themselves on others for all of history. It the natural way of things.

Again, you don't know what you'd be preserving or changing without first observing.

When we define what it means to be a human being we refer to these aspects which are common to all of us. and not specific to any particular culture, or group of cultures. We are all in the group "human being" regardless of culture. — Metaphysician Undercover


I'm afraid this is not the settled unquestionable reality you think it is. On the contrary you have merely hidden the circularity from yourself. We decide who is human, and whoever we have decided is not human does not get to make the decision. And that used to include peasants, slaves, blacks, children, homosexuals, the disabled, and disfigured, and women, at various times and various places. there is still controversy on this board about when a clump of cells becomes a human. — unenlightened

Yeah, like I said, it comes down to nature. Humans' use of an arbitrary system of categorization isn't very helpful. The hierarchical nature of life's speciation isn't arbitrary.

I don't see what you're arguing, if you are arguing anything. How would you expect to observe a culture without interacting? By spying through telescopes? How could that be respectful of the people's privacy? — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't arguing anything. I was asking a question and you answered it with another. Are we performing mental gymnastics again? Just answer the question, MU.

But the subject we're discussing is not simple "observation". What we're discussing is "preserving the more primitive culture for the purpose of...". The subject is preserving the culture, not observing the culture.

All you've done now is changed the subject. You're not talking about preserving a culture any more. So what's the point in proceeding on this path? — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you know what it is you're preserving without first observing the culture in its primitive state PRIOR to any interference of another culture? Once you've interacted you've destroyed any chance at knowing what the culture is before any external interference changes it. But yeah, you and unenlightened can keep running around in circles if you want.

No, the senses are not observations. How do you define observation? Language is sometimes tricky. My point is, when scientists run experiments, they have to rely on observations of others, rather than their own observations. How many scientists experiment on themselves? — bogdan9310

I didn't say that the senses are observations. I said that you make observations with your senses. That is the definition of observation - using your senses. Scientists performing their own experiments rely on their own observations to make sure theirs is the same as some other scientist who made a claim that they are now testing. They are testing the consistency of the claim of another by using their own observations.

The problem is, that in order to maintain that culture for the purpose of observation it would require denying the members of that culture the right to leave that culture and join the culture of the observers instead. This would be the same sort of oppression forced on slaves, denying them the right to leave the culture of the enslaved to join instead the enslaving culture. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is nothing but straw-men, MU. Denying members of that culture the right to leave isn't just observation as I have been stating. Once you've done that you've gone above and beyond what I've talking about (observation).

Think about it this way. When a biologist wants to observe another animal, they hide so that they don't disturb the animal and its natural behavior. They don't want to influence the behavior by making themselves known the other animal. This is what I'm talking about. Scientists would observe from a distance so that their presence isn't noticed so that they can observe their behavior independent of any interaction with them because once you interact you forever change that culture. So cultures change as a result of interacting with other cultures.

A mixture of two distinct things makes a mixture of two distinct things, each of the two distinct things forming a part of the mixture. It does not make the two distinct things one and the same thing. Mixing water and salt will produce a solution, but it does not make water and salt the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not if it is in one's nature to be cultured, or social, like it is for human beings.

How? You can only observe anything with your senses. The is a difference is seeing vs hearing vs touching vs smelling vs tasting, but they are all observations.

What I am objecting to is the false identity which identifying the individual in relation to the existing culture, rather than identifying the individual according to the values and ideas which one holds, creates. — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem with both of you is that you both don't seem to understand that this simply a revamp of the nature vs. nature debate in which I already showed that nature and nuture are the same. An individual is an amlgam of culture and its genes.

Of course this all becomes an issue of moral principles. How would preserving a primitive culture for the purpose of science be fundamentally different from keeping slaves? — Metaphysician Undercover

:gasp: Mu, if you don't know the difference between simply observing someone's normal behavior to acquire knowledge, and beating someone to make them do your bidding, then you have bigger problems that can't be helped on a philosophy forum. You need to go to a psychology forum. You observe other people everyday in order to acquire information or knowledge about them. If you think that is any where close to being morally equivalent to owning slaves then I just don't know about you.

:sad: Experience IS observation. Seeing is an observation.

Right. I interpreted your words as ridiculous and you say that they aren't. So now what? Who is right? How do you determine who is right?

Observation is not reliable. — bogdan9310

Then your knowledge is not reliable because your knowledge is based on observation.

Having different observers, we could be looking at the same thing, and have 10 different observations. Observation is not reliable. — bogdan9310

This is ridiculous.
Then 10 different people reading your post and interpret it 10 different ways, and your own ( the author) interpretation would be just as unreliable as everyone else's. How do you know you're reading the same words on the screen as everyone else?

So where do you get this idea to "protect" an isolated culture? What would be the purpose of maintaining this distinct and isolated culture, as exemplified in the op? — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems to me that a more advanced culture would want to preserve a more primitive one for the purpose of science - something a more primitive society might not understand.

In terms of the theme of this thread, the Namby-Pamby wants above all to transcend his own culture, and to stand outside it in a judgement of perfect impartiality. — unenlightened

Then Namby-Pamby needs to be a human raised by machines and never see or make connections with humans and be taught about humans as if they are just another animal that engages in different types of social behaviors than other animals. Or better yet, Namby-Pamby needs to be a machine observing humans in an objective light. A human being could never obtain that sort of objectivity because every one of them is a product of their culture (and their DNA - and it is in our DNA to be a social creature (for most of us at least)).