In some situations you have to look at the person within the body and hold off on judgement. Then the body just becomes part of the human potential, and what you think of it reflects how you see humanity in general. — frank

Absolutely, much of life is situational. In fact, merit and character should always trump body shape when judging an individual.

How I view humanity is very inconsequential, however I must say I hold it in the greatest of contempt and have little hope for it as a whole, and although it will continue getting stupider, ironically, it will survive.

however I must say I hold it in the greatest of contempt and have little hope for it as a whole, and although it will continue getting stupider, ironically, it will survive. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's a heavy load to carry.

That's a heavy load to carry. — frank

Do not worry my friend, I carry it very lightly. I have chosen much heavier metaphysical and existential loads for myself which dwarf the notion of "humanity" into absolute insignificance.

"Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior." - Nietzsche

Do not worry my friend, I carry it very lightly. I have chosen much heavier metaphysical and existential loads for myself which dwarf the notion of "humanity" into absolute insignificance. — Merkwurdichliebe

Wow! What are they?

Oh yes, it signifies that we have to change all our taboos if we even question one of them, and I am advocating that. — unenlightened

I think we ought to question all base principles, not only basic taboos, but fundamental axioms of mathematics, foundational laws of physics, and assumptions of biology as well. This gives the skeptic a useful place in our society.

The problem is that the more basic, or foundational, that a principle is, the older it tends to be. But the human world, is a living, changing, and evolving world, as are human beings. And these old principles which were established way back when humanity wasn't the same thing which it is today, really need to be revisited.

Wow! What are they? — frank

Nothing special. Somewhere in there it involves philosophy, that's probably why I like TPF. I might be able to start a new thread calling for TPF members to detail the metaphysical and existential loads they carry in life. What do you think?

But the human world, is a living, changing, and evolving world, as are human beings. And these old principles which were established way back when humanity wasn't the same thing which it is today, really need to be revisited. — Metaphysician Undercover

Humanity is the same in some aspects, and different in others. For instance, its contemptibility is the same as it has always been, however, its technology and stupidity has increased dramatically and in direct correlation.

To what extent can we attribute the progress of todays world to tradition?

For instance, its contemptibility is the same as it has always been... — Merkwurdichliebe

Why would you say that humanity's contemptibility is the same as it ever was, and then say its stupidity has increased dramatically? Do you not see this as blatant contradiction, or is stupidity not contemptible? If the stupidity you are talking about is an innocent naivety then perhaps the latter would be possible, but you position it in relation to technology.

Why would you say that humanity's contemptibility is the same as it ever was, and then say its stupidity has increased dramatically? Do you not see this as blatant contradiction, or is stupidity not contemptible? If the stupidity you are talking about is an innocent naivety then perhaps the latter would be possible, but you position it in relation to technology. — Metaphysician Undercover

First, remember that my opinion on humanity is quite inconsequential. So, I was speaking off the cuff, let's see what it means...

Stupidity can be contemptible. But i am speaking of stupidity as an enabling factor that gives humanity the greatest excuse in the world to blunder with impunity, despite it's technological ability. Is it the indicator of contemptibility? I would say it is one amongst others, like cowardice or greed.

So...without stupidity I would still find humanity contemptible, in fact, it might be more contemptible, being more clever in succeeding with its treachery (assisted by technology).

Whatever the case, it is fun to point out the dialectic of stupidity and technology.

think the point is we choose our taboos (at some level) and we can examine their individual merits. unenlightened's point about sexualization and nudity is at the very least worth thinking about. — Baden

I wasn't dismissive of it. I was trying to arrive at a reason why the nudity taboo ought be reconsidered. The basis provided by me was not that nudity necessarily leads to arousal, but that it's a social norm related to modesty. My suspicion is that it's possible to desensitize ourselves from arousal when watching others have sex as well. My question is why we ought abandon a social norm because it makes things less workable for 0.5% of the population.

Do I have the right not to shower alongside a fully physically appearing female who identifies as male? I think I do, else somewhere we've assessed his right to avoid the discomfort of showering in the women's shower higher priority than mine.

Telling me to get over it and deal with the naked person of whatever stripe is next to me sounds as reasonable as me telling him to get over it and shower somewhere else.

Do I have the right not to shower alongside a fully physically appearing female who identifies as male? — Hanover

Given sex segregated showers I think you do. But given only non-sex- segregated showers, no you do not. It's a matter of what segregations are mandated and recognised in society. For sure there were times when facilities were race segregated, but times can change, so we can debate.


Mixed facilities are not all that uncommon.

Only the disgusting ones, especially when they are naked — Merkwurdichliebe

Probably unsurprising, but I'm going to say that all bodies are not disgusting. Bodies are an abstraction from the concrete perception of another individual. In the present you see a form, and that's all you can say theoretically. Your disgust is only yours, and not a society-wide disgust. I can honestly say I don't care (EDIT: in terms of disgust -- obviously I have sexual desires) about seeing naked bodies in the least regardless of their form.

The only condition I can think of in which some bodies are disgusting is that if I desire all bodies to be attractive to me, sexual or otherwise. But that's clearly a groundless desire, given how our notions of aesthetics are different from one another.

Probably unsurprising, but I'm going to say that all bodies are not disgusting. Bodies are an abstraction from the concrete perception of another individual. In the present you see a form, and that's all you can say theoretically. Your disgust is only yours, and not a society-wide disgust. I can honestly say I don't care (EDIT: in terms of disgust -- obviously I have sexual desires) about seeing naked bodies in the least regardless of their form.

The only condition I can think of in which some bodies are disgusting is that if I desire all bodies to be attractive to me, sexual or otherwise. But that's clearly a groundless desire, given how our notions of aesthetics are different from one another. — Moliere

I don't think you've over-thought this at all. Just the right amount. :up:

Has there been a case, YET, of identical male twins both becoming women (or visa versa)?



Maybe it has?

Being “friendly” to people we have just met is a marker strategy for being a good cooperator.
— Mark S

That's a very unreliable principle. If I meet someone on the street who is unusually friendly toward me, I am very wary that the person is trying to take advantage of me in some way or another, because that is how the con works. — Metaphysician Undercover

I, and virtually everyone, would be similarly wary of unusual friendliness.

Why? Because we suspect it is preparatory to an attempt to exploit us by asking us to do them a higher cost favor.

Why would we suspect that? For two reasons. First, because friendliness initiates low-cost cooperation with the goal of mutual small psychological rewards directly from the friendliness. Second, friendliness is a marker strategy (a fallible heuristic) for being a reliable cooperator for higher-stakes exchangers.

Our innate interest in, and ability to detect, “cons” is necessary for sustainable cooperation in groups. Otherwise, exploiters and free-riders would destroy the benefits of cooperation and therefore any motivation to cooperate. Our interest in, and ability to detect, “cons” is part of a cooperation strategy.

I explained already why the Golden Rule is very clearly not a cooperation strategy. Cooperation requires a common end. The Golden Rule as commonly stated has no implications of any end. You simply misinterpret it to claim that it states that one should treat others in a particular way, with the end, or goal of getting treated that way back. And I already explained why that particular goal, which is inserted by you in your interpretation, is clearly not a part of the Golden Rule. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Golden Rule advocates initiating indirect reciprocity, the most powerful cooperation strategy known. Indirect reciprocity has no stated goal - it is a cooperation strategy, not a goal generator. The Golden Rule is inarguably part of a cooperation strategy. If you want to understand morality you must understand at least a little about game theory.

The Golden Rule is a heuristic (a usually reliable, but fallible rule of thumb) for how to achieve shared goals by sustainable cooperation. Burdening the Golden Rule with specific goals would be counter-productive. The lack of goals in no way inhibits, but rather augments, the Golden Rule's cultural usefulness and applicability as a moral reference (as part of a cooperation strategy).

I can make no sense of your claim that "the Golden Rule is very clearly not a cooperation strategy."

The Golden Rule advocates initiating indirect reciprocity, the most powerful cooperation strategy known. Indirect reciprocity has no stated goal - it is a cooperation strategy, not a goal generator. — Mark S

As I've repeated already, I believe there is no reciprocity implied by the Golden Rule, and I think that this represents a gross misinterpretation on your part.

It appears like neither of us has any will to compromise on this issue.

As I've repeated already, I believe there is no reciprocity implied by the Golden Rule, and I think that this represents a gross misinterpretation on your part. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with you that the Golden Rule advocates behavior independent of conditions or consequences such as the expectation of reciprocity.

However, following the Golden Rule INITIATES indirect reciprocity, regardless of any lack of awareness of that being the case. People acting in accordance with the Golden Rule without consideration of consequences is the main mechanism for initiating indirect reciprocity in societies, the main strategy for maintaining a well-functioning society.

People can and do act consistently with cooperation strategies (act morally) without awareness that their behavior has anything to do with cooperation (with forms of reciprocity).

Picking this sentence up from a dead (12 month-old) thread:

It is also not to say we can discriminate on the basis of gender or sex identifcation for malevolent reasons, such as to ostracize, bully, ridicule or harrass. — Hanover

Is this to say, "We can discriminate, just not for malevolent reasons," or is it more true to say, "We shouldn't do things malevolently, including discriminating (malevolently)"?

The difficulty is that introducing the word "malevolence" is often a move into vacuity given that the word usually has no substantial definition. In other words: what is the moral status of discrimination?

(Good OP, by the way)

Since the historical basis of the seperate bathrooms was the result of the sexual distinctions and not the gender based distinctions, you cannot allow the gender based women access simply because of the happenstance of their both now using the term "woman." — Hanover

I think it's always been a gender-based social enforcement, even if we used the language of sex. — Moliere

I think the question is not so much, "What have we done in the past?" as it is, "Why have we done it?"

Why did we make two bathrooms in the first place? That is where the discussion needs to start.

I think it's always been a gender-based social enforcement, even if we used the language of sex. — Moliere

The common premise here is that, "We now think of gender and sex as different things, therefore we always thought of gender and sex as different things." Hanover says we used to think about them as different things and "man"/"woman" referred to sex, and Moliere says we used to think about them as different things and "man"/"woman" referred to gender. I say we didn't use to think of them as different things. Bathroom labels didn't use to mean sex-but-not-gender or gender-but-not-sex. Actually, they still don't for the vast majority of people.

Adult human female.

Oh, discrimination is not only not a negative, it's essential to human existance. Since in it's absence we'd treat each other identically ie we'd never learn from experience.

Of course, there is a key difference between discrimination between groups and individuals. For example it is more than reasonable for an insurance company to charge more for all businesses in a neighborhood (that happens to be majority Black) that experiences more vandalism. It's completely unreasonable to charge a business that happens to be own by a Black man but located in a neighborhood with average vandalism, a high premium.

Adult — Captain Homicide

What is an adult? Is it legally set by the State? Or biologically by puberty? What if one is a eunuch and does not go through "puberty" per se? Or has some other condition where the biological process of adulthood does not occur? Does a person require mental faculties and sanity to be considered an adult? What about an adolescent who has seen and been through more than most adults can and will and has an IQ of 200 and has physically developed to full physical and mental maturity? If that person is not an adult then it means "adulthood" is set by the State and very well could be declared tomorrow that being eight years old is now an adult.

human — Captain Homicide

What is a human? What if one's brain has been altered to fundamentally operate as an AI or replaced altogether with an AI brain? What if science reaches the point of head transplants and one becomes just a brain in an entirely robot body?

female — Captain Homicide

This is simply glossing over and rephrasing the term that is currently under scrutiny, is it not?

Ill leave off the quote and go forth:

1. an adult is one who has reached sexual maturity. However, given that we're trying to argue about definitional norms, one who has reached the age of majority is hte correct answer. This leaves a huge amount of wiggle room for different institutions to think about different policies, and the knock-on effects of higher-level policies (like age of majority). I don't think, in that context, you can just throw up your hands - OR completely reinvent the wheel, with any success.

2. The 'what if's' are prevarication in this area. We all know what a human is. If you don't, that's not really an issue anyone else needs to explain. If your questioning tactic were taken seriously, we're looking at Furries are legitimately (lets say) reptilian beings, when that is not the case. The AI example is a red herring. Is the person Human? That can be ascertained prior to any 'changes'.

3. No. No it isn't. A female is well-defined across several contexts (electronics, for example) and humans are no different. There are precisely zero humans who are not male or female. There are no in-betweens. They do not exist (unless you've got one hidden away, which would be fine with me)This is because the species Human is sexually dimorphic. Phenotypic ambiguity is irrelevant. Is your SRY active?

None of this is to say "use the above to write policies, and leave the rest alone". But it is to say pretending these fundamental starting points are seriously questionable is not reasonable.

Oh, discrimination is not only not a negative, it's essential to human existance. Since in it's absence we'd treat each other identically ie we'd never learn from experience. — LuckyR

Discrimination is literally the function of higher-order thinking.

Oh, discrimination is not only not a negative, it's essential to human existance. Since in it's absence we'd treat each other identically ie we'd never learn from experience. — LuckyR

I agree. :up:

Of course, there is a key difference between discrimination between groups and individuals. For example it is more than reasonable for an insurance company to charge more for all businesses in a neighborhood (that happens to be majority Black) that experiences more vandalism. It's completely unreasonable to charge a business that happens to be own by a Black man but located in a neighborhood with average vandalism, a high premium. — LuckyR

Well, if the insured businesses are more likely to be vandalized then it is reasonable for the insurance company to charge higher premiums, regardless of whether groups or individuals are involved.

if the insured businesses are more likely to be vandalized then it is reasonable for the insurance company to charge higher premiums — Leontiskos

You can rearrange this sentence to adequately respond to most charges of racism/sexism/transphobia etc..
Generally speaking, that aspect of the person/group/behaviour/whatever else... is actually not relevant to the policy, and some other aspect is. It is not the fault of policy that it has more frequent interaction with a particular group due to their behaviour or self-affected identity.

You can rearrange this sentence to adequately respond to most charges of racism/sexism/transphobia etc..
Generally speaking, that aspect of the person/group/behaviour/whatever else... is actually not relevant to the policy, and some other aspect is. It is not the fault of policy that it has more frequent interaction with a particular group due to their behaviour or self-affected identity.

You use "group" in your commentary, which is reasonable. My point was it isn't reasonable when group statistics are used on individuals. In just about all variables involving humans, the statistical differences between cultural or gender or geographical or racial or sectarian groups are smaller than those within those groups. Thus when dealing with individuals, it is not reliably predictable whether they will fall above or below average in whichever variable you might name, merely based on their being a member of a particular group.

Of course some zealots pretend that there aren't differences between groups, which is erroneous BUT their conclusion that we should each be evaluated on our individual merits is not.

point taken, but ironically - it’s case by case. Religious groups, for instance, can quite reasonably be profiled given some very cursory case-specific information (ie if you’re Catholic, are you practising?). Many very helpful applications here.

But those let’s call them arbitrary “attributes” you’re complete right. But if a particular issue exists only in that group, regardless of prevalence, we’re right to ascribe it to that group. But this takes beinf an adult which most discussing social politics are not. Vibe tends to be that Their group is diverse despite being a special interest group, but the out-group is not despite being literally everyone else… seems the common take so your point is very apt

100% with you on this.

As far as the toilet discussion is concerned, the solution for ridding of even the need for distinction is a simple one - single stall restrooms.

It's completely unreasonable to charge a business that happens to be own by a Black man but located in a neighborhood with average vandalism, a high premium. — LuckyR

It's completely illegal to charge a black owned business a higher premium based upon race, but whether it's statistically unreasonable is a matter of math. That is, correlations between risk and race, religion, hair color, shoe preference or whatever might or might not exist such that insurance premiums might be reliably set by it to be profitable.

Insurance is a highly regulated industry though, with elected insurance commissioners in most if not all states, meaning premiums and underwriting standards are not set by the free market.

The point of this is just to say that public policy isn't set by just a few fundamental principles of logic or even fairness. It's set by the millions of interests of the public in a democratic way.

This is to say if we wish to treat cis males just like transsexual males, we may or we may not as a matter of policy, with no specific single reason controlling, but all interests more or less being considered in the typical democratic way.

To the extent though anyone actually argues that cis and trans folks can't be meaningfully distinguished, that is stupid. I don't think people really do that, but the definition games often get played in a way that it pretends there is some confusion there.