And yes, a non-answer happens to be just as damning (or rather, the equivalent of one) in this particular corner you've painted, by the way. — Outlander
1.do you think there is still systemic racism in this country against blacks? Do you think2. the fact we've never had a woman president is indicative of anything? Do you think the fact that Congress and3. the leadership of Fortune500 companies are disproportionately made up of white males is indicative of anything? — RogueAI
Neither is every person who comes through the border from another a country a saint. . . so does that imply something legally we are supposed to do when there IS NO MORAL/LEGAL OFFENCE COMMITTED?Uh... yes. Keep the violent people away from non-violent people. What did you not understand about that? If trans are being placed among a violent prison population, it is because they committed acts of violence themselves. You seem to think that all trans people are saints and only cis-people can be mean and disrespectful. — Harry Hindu
That is the thing. . . you say that and I agree. However, it kind of looks like that we partially even if in a rather subtle sense agree with your average white nationalist down the street. Isn't that rather peculiar?I think you're taking it a bit far. I do not think laws should discourage assimilation.
They should discourage the importing of harmful people. If there is a high percentage of certain crimes carried out by an identifiable group, we do tend to legislate against that potential. — AmadeusD
Yeah. . . so how far are we supposed to take it?In principle though, profiling and caution are more than likely the bedrock supports society uses to avoid wholesale intrasocietal conflict. — AmadeusD
so how far are we supposed to take it? — substantivalism
I also don't think I'm taking it too far as much as abstracting the reasoning that people use to justify this. — substantivalism
Once you enforce some group as the 'out' and another as the 'in'. . . human shenanigans follow. — substantivalism
the real issue — substantivalism
Problem. . . solved? — substantivalism
Seems sort of vague.To the point that it is helpful, or violates other norms to avoid harm. — AmadeusD
I'm not for legislating, which may be what you're getting at, but I am definitely for individuals having their wits about them and making discriminatory judgments wherever they can, provided they are not arbitrary. I accept the unfortunate reality of this leading to plenty of ill-informed or patently illogical personal discrimination. I take this to be hte price. — AmadeusD
But that is what society is, and does, on its face. I can't see that 'society' amounts to much else. I think you're maybe being insufficiently clear that we're talking about visible groups, not just groups. We have plenty of 'out' groups (like rapists) who are widely condemned, often attacked with impugnity etc... for good reasons (to clean up society in some way). — AmadeusD
What's that, to you? — AmadeusD
Setting aside the clear stab here(it was funny, so fine lol) I am bisexual, and married. LOL. I do not care what people look like, generally. The ambiguity means the rules are irrelevant. There is no restriction, in those cases because anyone can claim an identity and move along expecting you to assent to their self-image. If that seems reasonable, we don't have much ground on which we could talk about it. — AmadeusD
I'm happy to let people who want to play games choose who they will or won't play with and against. Personally I think athletes cheat by exercising and practicing so we wimps stand no chance; so I won't compete in their sports.
I don't think restrooms need policing; they just need regular cleaning. I always use the one with the symbol person with trousers, not the one with the dress, but they are usually both 'open to anyone', except for the individual cubicles when occupied. — unenlightened
So you are happy for women’s sport to be destroyed and for women to risk assault when needing a to go to the toilet away from their home? — Malcolm Parry
I am happy for all sport to be destroyed, at least as a public display. And I am happy that women are generally not risking assault more when going to the public toilet than when walking down the street. Thus toilets need no more security than streets.
So you are happy asking leading questions like some cheap attorney rather than interpreting charitably and engaging with others on equal terms? — unenlightened
Hey fdrake, — Jeremy Murray
You think of gender as a social construct, then?
Because if one concedes any biological component at all then yes, trans women are more of a problem in women's prisons then cis women. Due to the entirety of human history.
The majority of opposition to trans issues comes from environments of genuine harm - so far, this appears to be change rooms (which, I mean, obviously, different from bathrooms), the playing field of sports (again, obviously, minor consideration with kids, major consideration with adult bodies), and women's prisons. — Jeremy Murray
You must be aware of the second gen feminist rejection of trans issues? — Jeremy Murray
The gay/lesbian argument that this is simply convincing gay people to adopt a different identity?
I would say that any scenario of a person claiming trans identity and then raping women in prisons - or even, engaging in consensual sex with women in prison - is one too many. Simply because it is wrong to do so. Same in reverse. I think your premise of affirmation ENABLES this problem. — Jeremy Murray
Trans people are not seen as a 'massive risk' and they are especially not seen that way in the bathroom. That's a bait and switch. — Jeremy Murray
It does, though, when used here. You're bait-and-switching this to high hell. If you mean chromosomal sex, then say that. If you mean phenotypic sex then say that. These have no effect on whether one is a male or female organism.
I cannot understand why this is even something to push back against. They are simple observations about biology. — AmadeusD
Why would I interpret charitably what I think is a crazy stance? — Malcolm Parry
You wouldn't and you don't. So please just ignore the crazy people instead of baiting them. Because in responding to them you are already implying that they are amenable to persuasion and argument. Why do you keep asking a crazy person questions? Have you no sensible people to talk to? — unenlightened
Millions of women world wide enjoy sport but you would happily dismantle the structure that allows them to do that. — Malcolm Parry
Millions of women world wide enjoy sport but you would happily dismantle the structure that allows them to do that.
— Malcolm Parry
Yes, that is nuts, — RogueAI
Yes, destroying womens' sports is nuts, but how would you enforce a bathroom law? Suppose Al has transitioned to Alice and looks like a woman. Do you want to force Alice to use the men's restroom? Conversely, if Alice has transitioned to Al, and looks like a man, do you want to force Al to use women's restrooms? — RogueAI
Bathrooms have been used quite simply for decades. Not sure why it would be an issue now. — Malcolm Parry
I agree, but isn't that a "woke" idea? I thought the anti-woke crowd, such as yourself, wanted trans people to have to use the bathroom of their sex instead of the gender they identify as. — RogueAI
I'm wondering about your anti-woke bona fides. What do you think of gay marriage? — RogueAI
Why do you think that the adjectives "male" and "female" properly refer only to the status of the SRY gene and not chromosomal sex or phenotypic sex? — Michael
Our disagreement has nothing to do with biology, but about the meaning of the adjectives "male" and "female". — Michael
I put it to you that if there is an alien species that is phenotypically indistinguishable from humans, such as Kryptonians in fiction, but with different chromosomes and DNA, then the adjective "male" in the phrase "male human" means the same thing as the adjective "male" in the phrase "male Kryptonian". — Michael
phenotype is the most immediate determinant of how the adjectives "male" and "female" are ordinarily used — Michael
the "male" chromosome pair (or the SRY gene) is only described as being male because it is the most common cause of a male phenotype. — Michael
Tennis? Maybe no difference — fdrake
Domestic abuse support groups - mix them up. Regardless of the other considerations, these are supervised group sessions of non-criminals, there's about the same risk to anyone as going to a cafe. I don't see a good argument for excluding trans peeps from these especially when they have a GRC. — fdrake
I'd probably want someone who has a GRC to get a choice of which gender prison they go to. — fdrake
Even then I don't think this one would matter much for domestic abuse support groups. — fdrake
that should also apply to women who provide such risks — fdrake
there is something uniquely risky about trans women — fdrake
is already subject to social condemnation, revulsion and hatred — unenlightened
I apologise, it was a bit pointed. — unenlightened
The UK law in effect forces such people into places where that hatred and revulsion will be worst. — unenlightened
meant they couldn't tell if I was a boy or a girl — unenlightened
"If you can't tell, it is none of your business." I still maintain that. — unenlightened
To the extreme that defecation has to be done in secret behind a locked door alone. As though pulling one's pants down made one sexually irresistible??? — unenlightened
It is rather odd that society mandates the covering up of the sex, but then turns that same covering into a conventional display of it as gender — unenlightened
Seems sort of vague. — substantivalism
sorties series of conflict percentages and when it gets high enough to actually warrant said action. — substantivalism
However, that 'widely condemned' thing you just noted works as a double edged sword and pushes potential offenders underground so they cannot get the treatment they require. In cases of extreme anti-social disorders or pedophilia they are bound to offend in some cases sooner or later unless treated — substantivalism
Reducing the number of POTENTIAL offenders — substantivalism
Do you see the tremendous social/cultural task before us now? — substantivalism
Domestic abuse is overwhelmingly perpetrated by males. Males cause trauma to those who have been abused by males. It doesn't matter what you think yourself as, or whether you have a piece of paper saying X. You are male. That is dangerous for females who have been abused by males. — AmadeusD
A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence was conducted. Inclusion criteria included publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a representative community sample or a clinical sample with a control-group comparison, a response rate of at least 50%, use of a physical or sexual violence outcome measure, and control of confounding factors in the analyses. A total of 228 articles were included (170 articles with adult and 58 with adolescent samples). Organized by levels of a dynamic developmental systems perspective, risk factors included: (a) contextual characteristics of partners (demographic, neighborhood, community and school factors), (b) developmental characteristics and behaviors of the partners (e.g., family, peer, psychological/behavioral, and cognitive factors), and (c) relationship influences and interactional patterns. Comparisons to a prior review highlight developments in the field in the past 10 years. Recommendations for intervention and policy along with future directions for intimate partner violence (IPV) risk factor research are presented.
The reviewed studies generally indicate that men and women are relatively equally likely to perpetrate IPV (Woodward, Fergusson, & Horwood, 2002) or that women show somewhat higher rates than men (Herrera, Wiersma, & Cleveland, 2008; Schluter, Abbott, & Bellringer, 2008). Thus, findings are consistent with the meta-analysis conducted by Archer (2000), which indicated that for IPV perpetration women are slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.