Not because of genitalia or menstruation or even physical disadvantages but how they are perceived by society. That is gender. — Malcolm Parry

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

Finland — boethius

Finland? BWAHAHA oh mate. No offense. I know many good Fins. Alright just these two guys. But really? Free health care? Free everything?

This is basically you guys if you keep that crap up.



No and I mean I talked to a Finnish (aspiring) politician. He made it seem fair. Sure, if someone's wife or husband is killed in a car accident and they are in true irretrievable anguish (which I believe the concept of such to be a lie) they can live the rest of their days in reasonable dignity. That sounds fine. But we all know, what sounds good on paper and that echos between the halls of good and wise men, does not always translate to the so called "Real world".

I will make a post about it. — boethius

Please do. But! Try the Lounge.

It's complicated/concerning, in the country I'm from "police harassment" means people who are sworn members of a municipal police force committing civil rights abuses, not what one might expect from the context of your story (you were harassing members of a police department).

It's still all, very, very interesting.

I was not aware of any issues. I was arrested a few weeks ago, then held in a psychiatric facility on suspicion of "police harassment", so have my own stuff to deal with. — boethius

That's actually the most interesting thing I've read here in a long time.

Anyway, he made a post about Trump and I made a reply along the lines of "that's the kind of person people relate to, as the average person's nature is low-brow, impulsive, and is basically the lowest common denominator", like I couldn't care less about the topic I just felt that was a fact that adequately answered the question and he completely ignored my post and just called me a "Trump worshiper", despite, again, simply giving my factual input as to the dynamic of the modern politic. Basically just an honest factual analysis of human nature as to how it relates to modern politics. Again, truly, I couldn't care less. So in my opinion, the individual in question is perhaps a bit sensitive or otherwise on a hair-trigger on certain if not many topics. I wouldn't take it personally, I suppose.

Oh now you care. After he's gone. Yeah. How typical of you

If you'd really care to know such information may (possibly) be found by observing my and his limited interaction from my posting history. (Which in fact I wonder if is even possible to view)

I'll give you my opinion point blank. If you'd like. But that shall be delivered privately, you can message me, if you'd like. Otherwise, don't speak ill of the (no longer posting). Have you no respect? :lol:

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

Not necessarily. Fear of a prolonged electricity outage could be considered a social construct, a wholly modern invention, while it is certainly not an "agreement" between anyone. It's outright undesired. But the intrinsic nature of losing something one desires, no matter how foolish and unnecessary, makes it widespread and common. Begrudgingly acknowledging what we do not wish to acknowledge is an agreement, but denial remains a true factor in society which invalidates any sort of conscious or willful agreement.

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

This is where it gets weird. Fuzzy, if you will. I'll continue to your next sentence as to "expectation."

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? — Harry Hindu

Expectation is fine. No one is forced to behave a certain way other than the basic codified laws. Don't murder people, don't park at Zone A after 6PM, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Sure, people don't expect you to walk around in public cursing and grabbing one's genitals in front of mixed company, but legally, that's allowed. One might be socially ostracized, but as long as no codified law is broken (harassing, stalking, or assaulting said person) that's just nobodies concern.

To the point, an identity is what one holds as a fundamental core of their existence. For example, one might consider oneself a lover, another might consider themself a fighter, or an intellect, or a "blunt" person. That's their right (in most all countries) to pursue what they consider happiness, be it fulfilling or not, provided it doesn't break codified laws.

Parents often expect their children to be "good persons", and such might be considered one's identity. Don't you consider yourself a good person? That's one aspect of your identity sure. But, as I'm sure you agree, that doesn't cast an unchangeable mold as to who or what you are (or perhaps can be). Does it?

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. — Harry Hindu

This is what I would consider the key point of your argument. While I agree, surely plenty don't. And though I feel you've answered this quite succinctly, surely @Michael will address this quote specifically.

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. — Harry Hindu

Society can say whatever it wants. I mean, sure, in theory, society can pass a law saying people under 5' should be killed for their own well-being, or perhaps that certain people should be enslaved. It doesn't make it right. Naturally, one must adapt to survive. So even in unjust times and scenarios, one would be wise to, I suppose, "get with the program" and do what you must do to survive. This has been the one consistent reality since the beginning of time. But, that doesn't change the underlying deeper reality that just because something is how it is, doesn't mean it's how it should be or would be best for all. You can agree on that much, yes?

In short, social expectations don't conflate with modern legal systems that separate persons by sex during moments of vulnerability (using the bathroom, being seated for a prolonged period with one's pants down and around their ankles thus immobilizing the person). Men have a primal desire to mate (engage in intercourse) with women. Anyone who avoids that fact is simply ignorant of the larger discussion. And human persons born a male are liable to retain such desires regardless of artificial medical operation. Am I wrong?

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. — Harry Hindu

I've noticed there's some disconnect between the two arguments here.

So, what is your argument in one sentence. Or two. One as simple as possible, and one as thorough as possible.

From what I can tell, as it stands at the moment of writing, the disconnect or disagreement is as follows:

@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 extreme existential desire that we are horrible people for preventing, he has yet to answer.

You believe, no, wishing you were someone else (be they a different gender, race, wealth class, or what have you) is simply a wish and not part of reality. Nor is it a medical need or necessity that requires a "remedy".

Do you agree with that, or no? If not, why not? Please be specific.

Realistically I believe post-gender thinking is the best way forward, though I'm not sure how possible it would be to convince people of this. — MrLiminal

This goes back to the heart of the debate, why would you have to "convince" someone of something that doesn't actually result in any benefit or alleviation of burden? Something that's not organic. Sure, I'll be the first person to agree that medicine, that is to say, the best path forward, in and of itself, may not taste good or otherwise be pleasurable at the start. Same with any effort, exercise, or endeavor. But why people do all of the above, things that may be at first or even overall unpleasant, is because all of these things result in one simple thing: result itself. It's "self-evident" that exercise, though often unpleasant and grueling offers benefit. Same with hard work, effort, and dedication. So, if your belief is not "possible" to justify (at least in your current understanding) I would have to ask the obvious question: what makes you think it justified to hold to begin with? :chin:

I think we are capable as a society of accommodating our various biological differences without getting as hung up as we do about what parts people have or if we think how they act matches their parts. — MrLiminal

The best part about modern society is that everyone is equal. Provided you follow the law. You can walk around thinking you're a cat and have a right to pee anywhere, but in reality, if you break the law, you will be placed under arrest or otherwise suffer real and tangible punishment toward your person or asset. That's the only way to get people to behave. And that's how the world we live in is.

In an ideal world, rude people or those unable to behave civilly would have been bred out along time ago. Problem is, this is a post-war world with 5,000 years of war, conquest, and various other immoralities. So, it's populated with the worst of the worst. That's what we're working with here. The solution is fairly obvious but as far as politically correct things going forward: it's about following the law and being a law-abiding citizen. Ensuring those who have true value in civil society (intellect, morality, compassion, heroism, etc.) are allowed to reproduce in greater numbers while those who are not slowly dwindle in number, thus making the world a better place for all and preventing it from becoming a hellish dystopia no one really wants to live in.

Also, glad to see you back after your 5 month absence. Feel free to post in the Shoutbox as far as what you've been up to. :point:

I do feel that's insulting to the majority of citizens. — Vera Mont

I feel people are not as educated as they, not only used to be, but could be. In short, I feel there's more to be known than what exists in the average human mind and that the gap between what is known and what could be known amounts to a level, a dark chasm, of ignorance that is demonstrably hazardous and does actively result in unnecessary, preventable harm, trauma, and suffering. In short, I'm a "what you don't know can in fact not only hurt, but kill", kind of guy. If that's alright?

That's what I believe and I know it can be justified by simple observation. Not a "truth hurts" kind of person (the absolute worst people who seek not truth but harm or validation of their own decrepit character like to say that when they haphazardly stumble upon a rare moment of false vindication of their poor life choices), but yeah, it's what I believe to be a fact. If one disagrees, that is perfectly acceptable. Though, it would be nice to show evidence to the contrary. I can back up my claim. Why not do so for yours, if you'd like?

So what does the transgender man falsely believe himself to be? — Michael

Born something he (or she, I don't indulge or humor nonsense let alone keep track of such) wasn't. How simple is that to grasp? Sure, it's natural to wish you were a few inches taller if you happen to be short, or a bit larger if you happen to be small, or much more wealthy if you happen to be poor, etc. At the end of the day, you were born as you were, not necessarily as you desire. And that's all there is to it.

You should not reinforce people's unhealthy delusions and obsessions, that only validates the only thing going on here, which is a lie. A delusion. At best a mistake and inaccurate analysis of one's self. It will never be anything more than that.

And sometimes a biological boy comes to identify as belonging to the gender role typically associated with biological girls, and sometimes a biological girl comes to identify as belonging to the gender role typically associated with biological boys – and this is not wrong because these gender roles are a social construct that have no direct connection to DNA or reproductive organs at all. — Michael

All of that is fine, well fine enough, as there's more important things to deal with, up until the point that one considers it logical to permanently and irreversibly alter one's non-disabled and fully healthy body and form, most critically those under the age of what is socially considered a functional and legal adult.. That is what you're blatantly avoiding, my good sir. And I believe you are doing such intentionally for whatever reason that is again up to the public writ-large to determine why and perhaps what should be done as a result.

What delusion? — Michael

That you're something you're not. It is common for men to shame other men and compare those they either do not respect or deem inferior to them or who are smaller than them as being "women" or "like a girl."

Just because someone is ostracized or otherwise feels out of place or "not a man/woman" ie. not a normal member of his or her group who fits in, doesn't mean that person is actually gender dysmorphic. They just don't feel normal because they either are not physically and get treated differently as a result or other persons have convinced them of such by sheer will alone. It's a tragedy. Plain and simple.

It's also not something that actually happens. This is a ridiculous strawman. — Michael

Dude. That's literally what the whole discussion is about. Yes, it is very ridiculous. But this is the topic we're discussing. Why are you doing this? Acting like that's not what the majority of people who have "gender-affirming" surgery effectively go through mentally, if not much more simplified. You're clearly intelligent enough to not have to avoid the topic. I'll let those viewing make their own decision as to your motives and reasoning for playing dumb.

You claimed that sex parts dictate which bathroom one can use such that people with a penis use one bathroom and people with a vagina use another bathroom. — Michael

I mean, while I can't answer for @Harry Hindu I feel the following a likely sentiment or inevitable question.

Do children not grow up wishing they were, I don't know, Superman or something? Some greater being with superpowers. Of course they do. That's why the genre and market of such is so popular. People want to be something they're not. And that's fine, as a child. But when you grow up and start physically and irreversibly altering your body over a delusion, something that's just not real or factual, it's just not right mate. Especially for those whose brains have not fully developed, which all science says does not occur until AT LEAST 25-- minimum.

Say I have a pet cat and I'm amazed at how high it can jump and the how it always lands on its feet. Just because in some fictional future one might be able to get implants that allow one to behave or interact with the world similarly, doesn't mean it should be done. Again limits have to be drawn, for the good of humanity.

Or, sure, someone who's taller than me. Or much larger and stronger. People shouldn't be chasing something they're not, they need to be content with the hand they were dealt and recognize it as a unique human experience that they have the privilege to enjoy, even if it is less than favorable.

What kind of world are we going to hand off to our children? One as its supposed to be, where people are people, yes with their faults and on occasion undesired features, shame, and everything in between. Or some dystopia where one person feels unwell or is maladjusted to life and wants to become a cyborg with 3 arms or an extra set of genitalia or less or more or I mean, it's just absurd. Limits must be drawn. Just because something can be done (bizarre and extreme surgery), doesn't mean it should.

Those exceedingly rare cases 1 out of like 500 million who have true chemical and biological androgynous syndrome, that's one thing. Some dude who just woke up one day wanting different body parts for no logical reason, that's just not something that needs to be taken seriously. Not in a world of real issues and tragedy such as human trafficking and starvation. I'm sorry.

All you did was insult the electorate. — Vera Mont

I'm sorry you feel that way. But it happens to be a fact that the average person is not educated as far as most efficiently and effectively managing nations, entire peoples, even small to medium-sized companies. Many are. But most are not. I'm not sure what's so controversial or insulting about what is generally considered commonly held and widely-agreed upon knowledge

They don't need a king to tell them what's good for them. — Vera Mont

No but they clearly had an effectual role model or leader or at least adequate teacher, or perhaps they did not, and the society in which was created by those who had such inevitably molded them into what they were.

Again, I'm not saying things are not best as they are, and such things should be left alone. This is simply the nature of the discussion we both willingly took part in and the facts of the alternate forms of governance need be stated as the facts they are. That is to say, just because one contender happens to have lost in the end, does not mean their positive attributes need be forgotten or dismissed as if they never existed or don't have eternal context in the field going forward.

Well, so much for Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, Eleanor Roosevelt, César Chávez, Malala Yousafzai Greta Thunberg... who needs 'em. — Vera Mont

What of them? They lived wonderful (if not tumultuous) lives and even in death continue to inspire others. Where is this parsimonious sentiment of yours coming from? Because, surely, it's not from anything I've written or attempted to communicate.

Is it that you overestimate toddlers' ability to negotiate traffic, underestimate adults' ability to express political views, or have historically unfounded faith in the ability of monarchs? — Vera Mont

No, I quite agree, the system is best as it is, such as it is, of course. That doesn't mean we don't live in a compromise whose downsides are not on full display at every turn and perhaps can be improved. Do you not agree? :smile:

Voters are emotionally immature idiots and we need the guidance of someone ordained in something. — Vera Mont

Not at all. It's the simple fluid dynamics of social progress. People want happiness, and that requires ignorance. At least, minding one's own immediate affairs. Being one's brother's keeper is a stark burden to bear. Ignorance is not, in and of itself, some immoral quality, it's simply one the majority possesses and this fact needs to be acknowledged, is all. If human rights are so important, why don't we just let toddlers walk around free and unrestricted from the moment they're allowed to walk? Is it because we're cruel fascists with a desire to control and quell all human spirit and endeavor? No, it's because we don't want them to get hurt! And that is the basis of all kingly authority. Well, at least, it used to be, once upon a time. :grin:

But that's a tale for another day.

As by the Holy Emperor Donald I? Done! — Vera Mont

Someone told me once, if you have to pick an extreme example to make a counter-argument, perhaps you should consider listening more closely to what the person speaking to you has to say. :smirk:

It does, if the election is conducted properly by the currently government; that is, the process meet a pre-set standard for fair elections. That's what constitutions are made for. — Vera Mont

Oh all the laypeople want are their short-sighted desires met. The layperson seeks not truth but mere empty validation, and so finds neither. No matter how ridiculous and hazardous to all around or who will come after it may be. Literally F all to what comes later. Any real election you might as well offer each and every citizen a rope to hang themself. Because that's all they would ever accomplish without the educated, intelligent class to show them that impulse is not intuition, pleasure is not purpose, and childlike emotion is not passion or knowledge. Laypeople need to be governed. Immensely. Lest they die by their own hand -- or worse, forever live in a Hell of their own making.

It’s both, which is why the article on gender that I directed you to says “gender is the range of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy), woman (or girl), or third gender.” — Michael

Well shoot why not a fourth gender? Or a fifth. Or a sixth. Or a 12th while we're at it! This is not slippery slope fallacy, this is what people will attempt to argue for. A limit must be drawn lest mankind wander forever lost in a dystopian deluge of his own making.

but the idea of sustainability in an ultimate sense; a sense that comes with the threat of human extinction - was not a concern until a post industrial era. — karl stone

What in the actual !@#$ does that have to do with anything? You don't have to think you're going to die if you don't do something to realize it might be of benefit to society and help men live better lives. Caring about what is vs. what could be transcends into several debates. "Leave well enough alone", "don't fix what ain't broke", etc. are some simplified examples.

This is where myself and other rational and educated folk might disagree. What proof do you have? That's simply where such written record post royal era becomes part of written history. What of it? Have you no concept of what monarchy is? No, of course not. It's quite clear.

Let me say this to you. Are we so positive you're not politically entranced to the point of denying yourself, and a result the fine viewers and spectators of this excellent arena, a larger, more important debate of self-control, restraint, and responsibility?

My assertion that 'environmentalism is based in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth' is slightly inaccurate. — karl stone

It is wholly, completely, and utterly inaccurate. A literal work of fiction and unfortunate delusion, for any who would partake such falsehood as fact. The concept that understanding the finite nature of this world and that it should be protected, predates any of the terms mentioned. Do you really think knowledge of the land and advocating for protection of one's productive capacity only came about in the 16th or 18th century?

Sure, during that time many societies were under strict rule, often kingdoms, which discouraged such free radical thought. So, coincidentally, such thoughts were not recorded or mainstream. Perhaps in that aspect there is some rationale to indirectly justify beliefs to the contrary. But not absolutely.

Surely, you cannot deny that the environmental cause has been taken up by the radical left as a critique of capitalism? — karl stone

As I've said multiple times, people have a tendency to "take up" anything that seems common sense to proliferate insanity and nonsense. Whether or not a just cause or fundamental ideal is currently or actively controlled, in a certain area, land, or territory, by people who could care less about the actual cause is not the issue. I mean, sure, it's a grave concern. But now we're changing the topic. Yet again. If you wish to make a topic about "are things intrinsic to human existence, whatever they may be, being used by those who have an agenda that is not about what they purport" or even simpler: "are people liars?", Sure. That's fine. And you should make a new thread on that. Meanwhile, we're discussing the current topic at hand as you've written it currently.

I'm still at a loss to understand your hostility. — karl stone

Hostility? My friend and dear sir, who I would love to perhaps one day meet and talk life over tea and scones, may I be so bold as to remind the good sir: this is a debate forum. Ideas are on the chopping block, to be attacked with whatever logical rationale one's mind is able to produce. Why would you think yourself any different and take such normal — mundane in these parts — criticism and expected pattern of discussion as "hostile?": That my friend is the definition of bizarre.

Let us circle back. I had a disagreement with what I believed to be a cornerstone or "rudimentary assertion" of your argument, and I made such known. Do you not believe the statement I quoted is fundamental to your discussion or would you be able to accept that, whether it may be right or wrong, factual or not, there's a deeper argument to be had? 'Tis all I wish to know, I assure ye. :grin:

If I'm wrong, just explain why you think that. — karl stone

Sure, maybe the current government or social zeitgeist is completely overlooking the true concept behind what environmentalism purports to look out for, as, people being people, modern governments being "of the people and (allegedly) for the people" might have completely hijacked or otherwise actively mislead and misrepresent such words and concepts to the highest degree. But that's not the point. The definition of the word and origin of the concept has nothing to do with politics or modern terms as the former predates the latter. Point blank. There's no argument of the contrary to be had. Respectfully.

If I'm wrong, just explain why you think that. — karl stone

Your changing the topic that I was referring to.

My topic, based on your sentence of:

Environmentalism has a basis in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth — karl stone

In reality, caring for one's farmland and the land around them has been a concept that predates any of the terms you mention. That's a fact. So, I'm correct and you're not. I hate being that simple about things but yes, that's those are the relevant facts of this interaction and situation at hand as they stand and so happen to be.

So you are saying Limits to Growth is true? — karl stone

I'm informing you (to no avail, no doubt, so mostly other interlocutors) the sentence of yours I quoted is inaccurate and nothing more.

Environmentalism has a basis in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth — karl stone

Uh, no. It has a basis in realizing that the physical world is finite and if you rob it beyond it's ability to regenerate itself you'll stave not only yourself but those around you and plunge whatever society into darkness, chaos, unrest, and eventual non-existence. See Easter Island. It's basic mathematics and mainstream science.

So right off the bat, no, that's just not correct. Please refine your topic and discussion to something remotely legible to sane people. Thank you. Just one TPF member's opinion, of course. No holds barred seeing you are of posting seniority (somewhat) and are no stranger to this forum.

Would you rather make mistakes and learn? Or be told what to do and learn nothing? — frank

Well since no one has welcomed @panwei to the forum yet. As if it weren't obvious why. :smirk:

I shall do so. No, no, not in the form of vainglorious and empty pleasantry or ADD-ridden emojis, no, something much more cognoscente of his innate human dignity. A friendly counter-argument, just a little token or trinket of good will, on his behalf. :grin:

Is the paired inquiry in your post above not a false dilemma? Surely there are more than two possibilities when it comes to something so wide, vast, and ever-reaching as the human experience itself? Isn't there? :confused:

Furthermore, one might argue: There is no shame in sub-ordinance or perhaps even servitude to a master one respects and believes as, not only knowledgeable, but virtuous, in the face of all life has to offer, thus offering more than one has themself to all of society. Not only a form of "vicarious-living" which it can be, but simple acknowledgement of the virtues of many philosophies and disciplines, not the least of which is humility. Which while can be abused and misused all day, and often is, nevertheless reflects an ingrained truth all wise men come to realize, one day or another. That truth being: there's always someone wiser than you. Failure to realize this is what births not only tyrants but unhappy citizens and as a direct result, unhappy peoples, nations, and civilizations.

What do you say to that? :chin:

There are sex differences in psychology. — Michael

These majority of those listed seem largely circumstantial for reasons I'll soon explain.

Basically, it's a list of common stereotypes. Listed as follows:

Women: More inclined to be afraid. More inclined to be passive or submissive. More emotional (positively, along the lines of empathy, understanding, or nurturing).

Men: (obviously the opposite of the above). More assertive or aggressive. More emotional (negatively, along the lines of anger, frustration, and pride).

So, let's analyze these traits in the context of modern and semi-modern societies, shall we?

So, everybody knows a father looks at his daughter unlike the way he looks at a son. While specifics may vary there is generally one common theme and that's that the daughter is "a precious little angel that has to be protected at all cost" whereas the male is a "little me who's going to have to fight and struggle to make his way in the world." So, throughout one's entire upbringing, specifically the first 5 years of life (crucial development period) this is instilled consciously and directly as well as subconsciously and by various indirect means.

This effectively explains the majority of the psychological and behavior differences, in one swing.

But I'll do one better. Even the minor "behavioral" quirks or mannerisms people don't tend to focus on much but do generally recognize as either "feminine" or "masculine." Say, putting one's hands on one's hips in frustration, for example. Women generally have larger, wider hips than men. Therefore, it's becomes a "natural" biological inclination.

Same thing for increased muscle tone for males on average. Where the insult "limp-wristed (what have you)" comes in. A man's arm is generally more large and muscular and the male wrist is generally more self-supportive than that of their female counterpart.

These both are minor, incredibly minor in their insignificance, in and of themselves, that is. Yet they seem to be, if not main, secondary biological factors (circumstantial, mind you) that determine many behaviors or inclinations toward behaviors over others.

Without getting carried away, simply put, I'm suggesting the possibility that the majority of the differences between sexes found in the article you linked are cultural, social, and otherwise "learned." I.E. they don't really mean anything other than that's how people raise their kids so that's how they turn out. If they raised them the opposite, than they would turn out the opposite, thus meaning those differences are not really scientific or intrinsic to any sex and are simply "traditions" passed on from one generation or society to the next. Not including the mannerisms or "convenience tendencies" that conform to the actual physical differences between the sexes (ie. daintiness in one's gait, hands on one's hips, etc.).

And that's even before testosterone and estrogen come into play. Some ethnotypes (races) have generally lower or higher testosterone and estrogen than others. This is due to evolutionary factors generally linked to the terrain and climate from where they "come from." If everything is nice and peaceful, it's a calm flat verdant meadow with everything "just right there", the need for testosterone was probably lower than say, a hot jungle, or rugged mountainous terrain that required constant toil each day. Should that mean certain races are more "masculine" or "famine" than others? It certainly shouldn't. But if you base everything based on those two chemicals well, to that person, it does.

„Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.“ — MorningStar

To what though? :eyes:

They're men pretending to be women. — RogueAI

Or. they might actually think that. Still, I can think I'm a disabled person but if my legs work absolutely fine and I cut off an actual paraplegic and park at their one reserved handicapped spot, depending on the society, I might soon be needing that spot legitimately.

"Pretending", per se, requires conscious and willfully intended imagination that still cognitively understands the underlying nature of what is real and what is not and chooses to temporarily embrace the latter.

So. As it is, your critique could use a bit of, refinement, shall we say, before it becomes as accurate as it could be.

assumptions of human nature — NOS4A2

5,000 years of recorded human history where wars are waged and the stronger or larger force takes and destroys from the weaker or smaller force is an "assumption?"

Like, it's just something I randomly made up one day? Are you serious? :rofl:

Bruh. Nah. Just nah. Come on, you're not that dense. :lol:

because they believe humans require authority and absolutism to keep their wildest impulses in check — NOS4A2

All you know is the life you've experienced in however many years you've been alive, a life, mind you, given exclusively to you by a strict and ordered society. With all due respect, you are ignorant of anything else as far as first hand experience. And that is a fact.

Not read anything like what you say there in the readings I have done on anarchy so far. — unimportant

Of course not! Because they've all been burned and their purveyors executed, by sheer public outcry and will of the people, mind you.

I'm not saying the descriptions I've laid out are what people interested in the purported mainstream texts desire, I'm saying that's what always, always, inevitably happens and how it works out.

If you think I'm wrong and full of it, that's fine. Sorry to interject and disrupt your discussion. I'll say this. You know what's on paper, and I know what happens when those words on paper become reality and rubber meets the road, per se, given time. If you disagree, that's fine, and we'll leave it there. Welcome to the forum. Great topic BTW. :smile:

Can you answer the question I posed earlier, how do anarchists propose to manage things like law enforcement, healthcare and the like if there is no government or is there government just only local government so it would be just all grass roots, cottage industry type of companies locally for all human public services? — unimportant

They don't. They want to undo thousands of years of human social progress simply because their lives didn't turn out as they desired them to be, in spite of the clear and blatant reality that their lives are actually much, much better than they would be without and infinitely better than they deserve.

They want blood in the streets, people who are born larger to control and enslave those born smaller (the so-called weak in their eyes, despite it clearly being them who are the weak ones morally and intellectually, the only things that matter and differentiate men from animal). They'll see woman taken advantage of as property to be raped and abused and killed on a whim, children abused and enslaved wholesale if not killed off entirely because "my group is bigger than yours so your resources belong to us."

They want to remove the single thing that every single great civilization and society, through unfathomable amounts of suffering and constant vigilance and toil, has been able to exclusively offer its citizenry that mankind has never been able to achieve since the beginning of time. Would you like to know what that thing is? Consistency. Stability. Predictability of what to expect from one day to the next. The very culmination of every single earnest and noble human effort, every single good man who died for a better future of not just his own but for all of humanity since the beginning of time. Gone. Why? For no other reason than "because."

They want to (or at the very least, will, if not stopped) take us back to a dark time of entire families and ethnic groups, men, women, and children slaughtered en masse. Entire villages and towns. A time where the darkest desires of humanity run rampant, unrestricted, and unabated with nowhere for good men who desire peace to lay their head. They have no understanding of human nature and what it inevitably results in absent of structure. Or at the very least, they don't care. Many, and you can ask them — they'll tell you flat out and point blank — if it's not tattooed on their flesh already, want to, and I quote: "Watch the world burn." That's not a political or lifestyle alignment or choice. It's clinical psychopathy and nothing more. These people are a danger to children and should not be allowed around them or be allowed to have them in any capacity.

These people are very, very dangerous and while they live, breath, and die in a state of constant hypocrisy without ever realizing it, or perhaps ignoring it as that is what shameless hypocrites do, taking everything from those who believe in order and law (modern society, infrastructure, technology, education, convenience, etc.) they nevertheless belong somewhere far, far away where their psychotic ideals will never reach another eye or ear drum forevermore. For the good of humanity. There is literally no discernible difference from a so-called anarchist and a foreign agent sent to topple and destroy a nation as quickly and efficiently as possible so an invading army can usurp it, perhaps even by willing vote of the people themselves. None whatsoever. And governments have known this for a long, long time.

Edit: Don't confuse true, actual anarchists with simple "regime changists." Some even confuse or convince themselves as such when fed the right intellectual kitsch (ie. lipstick on a pig).

The disagreement stems over whether or not "women" and "biological women" always mean the same thing. — Michael

I think eventually it becomes a basic rudimentary argument absent of any other potentially bias-inducing circumstance. I.E. Yes, I'm a human being, some human beings are born male, female, smart, incredibly strong, or yes even disabled. Just because one person (or perhaps many) were born almost frighteningly gifted (Nikola Tesla, Nietzsche, Socrates, etc.) doesn't mean you can just "identify" as what some people are for no other reason than because you feel like doing so. Can you? :chin: It's a fair question. Nothing to do with biases or scientific knowledge at all, just as a general concept.

If there is a "sense" of recollection — J

If? Memory is real, hence your reference to it and the fact this entire thread is devoted to it, so, that's already been laid out. That is, essentially, if not word for word, the definition of what the majority of persons (and the entirety of professionals, I believe) would say defines "memory."

What is it? — J

Well, as stated, I would argue (or rather numerous scientific texts would argue for me):

[a] series of neural synapses making connections that invoke a sense of recollection in intelligent beings which benefits the organism due to utility of avoiding danger and/or finding safety, shelter, or other tangible resource. — Outlander

What does this actually mean, experientially? — J

Naturally, each man's experience is uniquely his own. So, that would be up to the "experiencer." Part of the joy and mystery of life, I guess. :smile:

Unfortunately, I doubt there's a whole heck of a lot of philosophy involved in such; more of series of neural synapses making connections that invoke a sense of recollection in intelligent beings which benefits the organism due to utility of avoiding danger and/or finding safety, shelter, or other tangible resource. But who knows. :confused:

And let's consider some hypothetical 46,XX/46,XY person with an equal number of XX cells and XY cells, ambiguous genitalia, and either bilateral oviotestis or streak gonads. Are they male or female? — Michael

I suppose the rational counterargument would be: ridiculously rare genetic abnormalities aside, how does that change a thing? I'm sympathetic to any person who exists and agree people who commit violence for any reason don't qualify as human and therefore aren't subject to human rights (ie. therefore, effectively, I am against people who commit violence against LGBT persons), which as a strict matter of fact happens to make me an ally of yours. That aside. What of the argument made before, that, just because, in rare occasions, humans may be born with less or more than 2 arms, therefore, because of that, humans should be medically and scientifically defined as "organisms that have anywhere from 1 - 3 arms."

Sure, the few hundred people out of billions and billions who meet that exceedingly strange criteria, may qualify as intersex and have a right to identify as the gender they choose, whereas anyone else is basically committing the highly offensive social offense of "stolen valor" and belittling the suffering and plight of said few individuals. No different than an able-bodied person parking in a handicap spot thus depriving the few who do suffer from such their rights, dignity, and above all quality of life. Can we agree on that?

Gender is not only about organs, but also about how you express and present yourself to others. — Wolfy48

Welcome to the forum. This is something I would like to question you about. What, or rather who, dictates that how one expresses themself or presents themselves to others must be contingent or follow some formulae or set of expectations? Where is this "grand consortium of social interaction" I can visit to better understand how I can better be a male (or female)?

I suppose, specifically, what are the list of "traits", characteristics, or "mannerisms" that "encapsulate" or otherwise define "male expression" and "female expression", respectively. Do you agree with the traditional or stereotypical assortment (ie. male: brashness, boldness. aggression/dominance?; female: whimsy, "daintiness", passivity/submission?) or something else?

Who's to say in some fictional village the female inhabitants just so happened to have evolved larger and more "aggressive" than the male inhabitants who together in turn resemble a living antithesis of modern gender norms (ie. the females are larger, louder, more violent, let's say and the males are smaller, quiter, and more obedient or otherwise on average are submissive to the females). What about that sort of scenario?

Point being, it seems like you're referring to social constructs (that sure, obviously are derived from *circumstantial* biological norms) that still, can vary or change wildly depending on many circumstances. Meaning, just because things happen to be a certain way for most people in most situations, that's just how evolution (or whatever else you believe) happened to have turned out on this one planet this one time. Is that really reliable simply because it's all we know? Ignorance is not knowledge, now is it?

(no pressure. seriously welcome to the forum, this is just, as you can imagine, a highly impassioned, and at times, personal debate for many. Remember: In philosophy we savagely attack ideas, not the persons who hold them. Though sometimes, as you might tell, the lines can get a bit fuzzy during certain types of subject matter. :razz: )

So you're saying it's a human right, not yet a civil right. — frank

Well, depending on what school of thought you choose to subscribe to (which is a civil right in and of itself, right to choose how one governs one's life choices ie. religion) "rights" are merely social constructs. Basically, as much as I would wish otherwise, no divine power is going to incinerate you if you intentionally violate another person's sense of well-being, safety, or dignity. Society has mechanisms (law enforcement, court systems, etc.) that do their best to do so (proactively via enforcement and retroactively via pressing charges), and little else. That's all we really have to work with here.

Bearing that in mind, we have social expectations, norms, and ideals. More pertinently, codified laws that the public largely agrees with as either necessary or that are socially advantageous in nature.

Harassment is a good example. You have a right to insult someone and degrade them with your words and (legal) actions. But in focused continuity, day in and day out, that amounts to the charge of stalking, defamation, slander, etc. There's a reason for these things, and I'm sure you understand what those are.

Legally, I can walk around an entire city all day everyday saying "You're going to die!" to every person I meet. I can do so without technically and legally committing any crime. After all, biology states, yes, all human persons will die at some point. That's not a threat. It's a fact. But there's a reason we discourage people from doing that and perhaps punish those who do. Because it's just not right. Yet, ironically, it is their right to do so if they wish.

To circle back, it's a social expectation, no different than the idea that a child should be able to safely reach adulthood where they can make their own choices before being put into unsafe, dangerous, or cruel situations. Or that a man has a right to work so as to feed himself without undue burden or hazard.

Legally, I can walk up to a small child with his family and say something like "I could kill you, your dad, and your mom in one punch each and there wouldn't be a thing you could do to stop me" and laugh in all their faces as the kid cries and whoever they're with considers committing a violent crime against me that in return I would be able to lethally defend myself against and walk out of court scot-free after doing so. Technically, I didn't commit a crime. Did I? I spoke a true fact (hypothetically, in this situation) and it was my "right" to do so. Point being, not all laws have to be intrinsically derived of some "universal human right" to be necessary and desired.

No, like Sir Baden said, apparently (and in my opinion unfortunately) gender-separated places of defecation and the like are not "biologically natural", or whatever he said. I would like him to cite that as well but moving on. As society progresses, so should our laws and understanding of what makes society a place people would willingly defend with their life and blood vs. that which isn't and perhaps we would fight against to destroy so a better one can take root. We either go backwards or we go forwards, and without rules and standards, the direction is quite clear. It's very simple.

Are you saying that women have a right to use the bathroom without biological men in the room? — frank

While I can't and won't answer for the particular gentleman, I feel it a point of basic decency to remind you of, and of course introduce into the discussion, the history of women's rights (or rather, more importantly, the lack thereof ie. the entirety of human existence up until recently) and the very real phenomenon of urinary retention from stress as well as the solid scientific documentation of it.

Rights or not, a place that cannot be properly utilized is a waste of not only money and space but purpose. And that, is unacceptable, even to those who find things the average person would have difficulty stomaching as casual and normal.

In the context of this particular argument, if you're not a woman, you simply are biologically incapable of understanding, at least in the way a woman would, and are pretty much just talking to move the air around. Men can relieve themselves standing, and most often do. Women cannot. Therefore, for a female, even the slightest feeling of "having to pee" introduces strong elements and notions of vulnerability into the current mindset. This happens several times a day. It's just not something a male will understand or relate to. As a female, at the slightest notion of having to pee, you will have to: disrobe your lower clothing to beyond the knee (essentially restraining primary mobility/handicapping one's self, albeit temporarily), kneel or squat (a scientifically-documented social and biological position of submission), remain completely focused on urination or the like, while maintaining social awareness of the surrounding environment so as not to fall victim to predators all while in a full state of maximum vulnerability, etc. This is absolutely and unequivocally mandatory at the slightest inkling of feeling the need to relieve oneself, if female.

Meanwhile, a dude literally just unzips his fly and goes wherever he wants and in a few moments is on his way. There is a huge physical, social, and most prudently, psychological difference between male and female alleviation of bodily waste.

The slightest feeling of having to use the restroom in a female subconsciously invokes a need for secure privacy away from predators for a prolonged and unknown period of time. For a male, it just makes you want to pee on a tree or something. There is absolutely no comparison and men should be completely removed from the debate itself as they simply aren't biologically equipped to understand (and therefore participate in) said debate.

(a bit beyond the point but just to quell what I foresee as a likely ancillary counter-argument: yes biological male pheromones have an effect on biological females and probably aren't helpful to have around when a female is doing their business in a place intended to place one at ease and be relaxing for one whilst in a state of forced vulnerability.)