Just jumping in because some of these are issues I've particularly considered - actually, some lead me to getting into philosophy proper rather than pop phil. Apologies, and ignore, if its irritating..

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

That is something happening inside your head. The Fifth exists to counter this exact erroneous reasoning. I do not htink that's a great argument, but it indicates that refusal to answer a question can only be described by excatly that... refusal to answer. It doesn't import any other assumption (or, shouldn't. The assumptions aren't the refuser's to answer to).

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

Preface: I refuse, prima facie, to see a disparity and lay it at the feat of bigotry. I need more.

1. No. It seems pretty obviously not the case. Trump throws a spanner, but if he's framing whatever mght actually affect Blacks negatively (seems he's doing the opposite, mostly) as a corrective, it's very hard to not accept that given the argument the other way supporting DEI;

2. Yes. Indicates that there is a lot of historical context to support both:
- Why not many women have become electable (haven't had the chance);
- Why people have a hard time voting for women, generally (unfamiliarity or inapt familiarity such
as a doting or abusive mother).

3. Probably that White Males are closer to masoschists than most black americans. But there's a deeper issue - the havoc wrought by Blacks in their own communities (whether or not the conversation about 'origins' of that havoc occurs and is agreeable) prevents them from systematically terrorizing other communities. White Men seem to have the time and space to do this indiscriminately. So, two layers of "You could be better psychopaths" LMAO. Most women do not want to be top managers because of the absolutely unbearable burden on ones mind, time and energy. I do not think this weird. I think it a fairly normal response to the historical situation in which people have gained, roughly, equality.

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

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?

You do understand. . . being an adult. . . that you don't spot rapists, pedophiles, and violent offenders off the street with some violent mind reading equipment. YOU WAIT UNTIL THEY COMMIT AN OFFENCE and then try them in a court.

We are talking about being proactive and whether laws should separate groups because of the POSSIBILITY of conflict by select rare offenders.

So if I had two groups, demarcated by race/gender/sex/religion/etc, should we enforce laws to separate them if there was the possibility of increased conflict from them? Not necessarily by virtue of any consistency or homogeneity of opinion with the main group from the offending group.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Example: Terrorism coming from select cultural/religious groups. Given there is a possibility that by blending said groups together with native populations could potentially increase the risk of terroristic activity (even though you don't know who if anyone from that group it could come from) should we therefore enforce laws that separate or discourage this mixing?

___________________________________________________________________________________

Violence naturally comes from any groups being mixed but we don't try to separate out. . . say. . . the population based on race statistics by legal/government decree to mitigate against this. Even if, perhaps, the general population does this somewhat clearly. I think most would still say it would be immoral and irrational to do so even if by doing so those race on race conflicts would be ended if they just remained separated.

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.

Men are not allowed in women's bathrooms. But this is not to encourage dissent between men and women. It is to prevent conflict, as you note. But using your final example, we could perhaps encourage caution when there are obviously indicators. An obvious indicator would not be a burqa. Far more conversation needed to get that onto any reasonable ground. In principle though, profiling and caution are more than likely the bedrock supports society uses to avoid wholesale intrasocietal conflict.

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

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 also don't think I'm taking it too far as much as abstracting the reasoning that people use to justify this.

In principle though, profiling and caution are more than likely the bedrock supports society uses to avoid wholesale intrasocietal conflict. — AmadeusD

Yeah. . . so how far are we supposed to take it?

When is the amount of potential conflict enough to legally/morally demand said caution if not take measurements to mitigate it similar to cautionary importation restrictions?

@AmadeusD I just want some honesty in that regard as to the reasons things like that are the way they are. In my opinion its a core moral principle being suppressed by a utilitarian attempt to reduce as much harm as possible while indirectly leading to social/culture conflict. Once you enforce some group as the 'out' and another as the 'in'. . . human shenanigans follow.

It also doesn't really solve the issue that such measures we're created to mitigate against to begin with. It puts a band aid on the real issue and we just sort of hopefully 'wait it out' until the dust settles.

It's like separating two kids because they had some tussle to cool off. Except, we never try to get them to make up we just never have them see each other again. Problem. . . solved?

so how far are we supposed to take it? — substantivalism

To the point that it is helpful, or violates other norms to avoid harm.

I also don't think I'm taking it too far as much as abstracting the reasoning that people use to justify this. — substantivalism

Probably yes, but that will be read as either "too far" or "Strawman". I don't think either is the case, in reality. These are discussions, not podiums for election.

Once you enforce some group as the 'out' and another as the 'in'. . . human shenanigans follow. — substantivalism

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).

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.

the real issue — substantivalism

What's that, to you?

Problem. . . solved? — substantivalism

Often, yes. Avoid each other. You can still be in the same class, but do you best not to interact for your own goods. Seems a reasonable remonstration.

To the point that it is helpful, or violates other norms to avoid harm. — AmadeusD

Seems sort of vague.

It also doesn't really address the nitty gritty details of the sorties series of conflict percentages and when it gets high enough to actually warrant said action.

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

Reducing the number of POTENTIAL offenders. . . not JUST the ACTUAL. That requires higher amounts of self-reporting, self-medication, and therapy to address the ailments which potentially lead to them performing said offences to begin with.

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.

That is the real issue that needs to be addressed. It's similar to how we address drug offences in that we either punish harshly those who use, because we can't easily get to the providers, so it raises demand on the product while punishing people into becoming frequent recidivists. However, we can't normalize all said drugs as that would conflict with moral dictates even if it did hurt the pocket book of select producers.

Do you see the tremendous social/cultural task before us now?

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 apologise, it was a bit pointed. But I couldn't resist the opportunity to make the sharp point of 'what really matters' to people about sex, which is who one might have it with. But the reality is that there is no restriction to anyone who can 'pass'. But anyone who cannot pass, (which is to say cannot conform their physicality to the stereotype) as either normal, is already subject to social condemnation, revulsion and hatred. The UK law in effect forces such people into places where that hatred and revulsion will be worst. We are interested in people, not genes, and people just are fucking weird. I am old enough to have been stopped in the street and given lectures about how my long hair meant they couldn't tell if I was a boy or a girl. To which my reply was generally, "If you can't tell, it is none of your business." I still maintain that.

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. 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??? Humans are ALL weird. Perhaps we are bonobos pretending to be chimps.

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?

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?

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

Why would I interpret charitably what I think is a crazy stance? Millions of women world wide enjoy sport but you would happily dismantle the structure that allows them to do that.
Women have much to contend with that I or any man doesn’t have to consider. Excluding men from exclusive women’s spaces is a simple and effective way of minimising assault (which is probably not the main issue) and embarrassment and feeling uncomfortable (which is hardly ever factored by men in discussing the issue) which of women having to share changing rooms and toilets with men.

Hey fdrake, — Jeremy Murray

Whassup.

You think of gender as a social construct, then?

Mostly yes.

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.

Why?

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 can add domestic abuse support groups to the list as well! If my take matters at all on each of these - I'll assume that the person has a gender recognition certificate {GRC}, ie they've managed to change their legal gender somehow.

1 ) Sports - probably depends on the sport. Tennis? Maybe no difference. Powerlifting? Definitely a difference. I think performance makes a difference.
2 ) 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.
3 ) Changing rooms - these are probably okay to mix from a risk perspective. Especially when they have a GRC.
4 ) Prisons - I'd probably want someone who has a GRC to get a choice of which gender prison they go to.

If we're talking about a process in which someone can just say that they're another gender on a form, and it grants them a choice, I think that's quite exploitable. Even then I don't think this one would matter much for domestic abuse support groups.

You must be aware of the second gen feminist rejection of trans issues? — Jeremy Murray

Yes.

The gay/lesbian argument that this is simply convincing gay people to adopt a different identity?

Yes.

I think both of those groups need to put the pipe down.

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

I take the point. If you make it about managing sex offenders in prisons, there are already protocols in prisons for dealing with sex offenders regardless of gender. If it were just about sex offences, women who have committed sex offences on other inmates should be sent to men's prisons. Do you agree with those further points?

I ask it because if the driving factor is protecting women from sexual assault, that should also apply to women who provide such risks. If it instead only applies to men who would sexually assault women in these spaces, then sexual assault alone doesn't explain the difference in treatment.

If instead there's something uniquely risky about trans women because they're allegedly men, that needs more words.

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

You don't see them that way. many people I've spoken with do. I treat the issue in that way because, my experience is, people think there is something uniquely risky about trans women because {allegedly} they are men.

I'll respond to your anti-woke stuff in a personal message, as I think the thread has enough tangents as it is.

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 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?

Our disagreement has nothing to do with biology, but about the meaning of the adjectives "male" and "female".

I think as a general examination of etymology, phenotype is the most immediate determinant of how the adjectives "male" and "female" are ordinarily used, with their uses in other cases deriving from this, e.g. 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.

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".

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?

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

I'm not baiting anyone. I'm interested in why people wish to eliminate women from sport and think female only facilities are unnecessary. I won't bother with you since you have made your stance clear and I doubt you will change.

Millions of women world wide enjoy sport but you would happily dismantle the structure that allows them to do that. — Malcolm Parry

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?

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

Indeed it is nuts; or rather "crazy". But it is not what I said. It is an uncharitable and invalid inference from what I did say. I don't much like sport so I would be happy if there was less sport, but I am not going to dismantle sport supposing that were remotely possible. But what I advocated for sport is that those concerned should make their own arrangements according to the sport. Snooker, I noticed has started to have matches between the sexes and good luck to them. Basketball probably ought to have segregation by height if anyone wants my opinion; fishing seems to have women in the ascendent position, I don't know what their policies are.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

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.

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.

To illustrate how times have changed, in med school we were advised that if we delivered a baby with ambiguous genitalia, to announce to the parents that they had a girl because 1) it's easier for the peds surgeons to create female organs than male and 2) if we hesitated in declaring a gender, that would intefere with parental bonding. Of course in Modern medicine it is recommended to state that the baby seems perfectly healthy but that further testing will be required to determine the gender.

Yes. My point was that rare cases of ambiguity don't render the whole topic of biological sex ambiguous. It usually isn't difficult to determine.

Have you ever seen a newborn where the legs are fused and there's no genitalia (and only a bit of kidney)? I guess we'd have to do genetic tests to determine sex in those kinds of cases.

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

99.9% of people will do exactly that. Very few trans people look like the gender they wish to be. If they do then who would stop them?

I'm wondering about your anti-woke bona fides. What do you think of gay marriage?

I'm wondering about your anti-woke bona fides. What do you think of gay marriage? — RogueAI

I’m a card carrying slightly left wing liberal. What consenting adults want to do is fine by me. I see no reason for homosexuals to barred from the same legal institution as heterosexuals.

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

They are descriptions, not adjectives, when we are defining sex, as opposed to differentiating. It is not a "quality" of a male to be male eg (tautology).
Male and Female are adjectives when applied to phenotype (because we're saying "masculine" and "feminine" but taking a short-cut), though. Maybe not adequately prizing this apart is hurting our discussion. I will try to be clear when I use each in my response.

Our disagreement has nothing to do with biology, but about the meaning of the adjectives "male" and "female". — Michael

If you think this, I don't think you're adequately participating. Your problem is that "sex" is not binary, but it is. I have shown that it is (well, as far as I need be satisfied anyway. I'm sure there are objections available, but I've canvassed all that have come my way). If this is not the case, most of what you've said seems superfluous and possibly disingenuous? I don't think that, I'm just trying to ascertain whether this claim (that i've quoted immediately above) is actually the case. I will try to answer to both issues...

Male and Female are adjectives when applied to phenotype, and actually standing in for "masculine" and "feminine". That allows a relatively (though, not properly) large grey area as to what traits fall into what bucket (physical, psychological or behavioural i suppose. A perception thing, anyway).
The use of "male" and "female" as reproductive terms is descriptive and not adjective in the way you are saying. "male" and "female" do not admit of degrees, in this context. They either are, or aren't (though ,the whole point is if not 1, then 2 (and no 0s)). When we speak descriptively about, let's say, facial features we can say "That face is a bit more male than this one" and be making sense because we actually mean to say "more masculine" (you can tell, because we say this often when we know the sex, and our expectation has been violated (Statue of Liberty for instance)).
We cannot say "this organism is a bit more male than this one" and be making sense, because there is no degree we could admit under that description.
This may sort out the whole thing. But assuming not.. onward...

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

Rejected, wholesale with a bit of a smirk. We could not call them 'male' unless we understood their reproductive system and could find an analogous place for their counterparts as we have in 'males" and "females". This is because:

phenotype is the most immediate determinant of how the adjectives "male" and "female" are ordinarily used — Michael

Disagreed, quite strongly. I think this might be hte case in small slivers of "woke" demographics and the like, but this is absolutely not what is generally understood by those words. We definitely fall back on the heuristic of "looks like a duck, walks like a duck" because we are so incredibly accurate at assessing sex on-sight (more than 93%, it seems). But that is not what we mean. We we mean is that we have assessed the phenotype and assume, via statistical analysis, that this person is "a male" or "a female". We are not, almost ever, saying something akin to "This person's appearance is male" because that makes absolutely no sense. Either, they are male and their appearances adheres, or it is deviant and we need a further assessment to understand whether A. we care, and B. we can know their sex from appearances.

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

I cannot understand that this isn't a bit of satire? I am really, truly not trying to be rude. This seems Monty Python-esque. We call the phenotype male because it is the typical response to SRY-activation in gestation. It is an observational term. We didn't assign it (well, we did in the sense of 'invent the word', but the place it was assigned existed and we just named that place "male"). The same way we didn't "assign" "Lion". It describes something stable and "true".

Tennis? Maybe no difference — fdrake

Serena Williams has some extremely strong words for you. Extremely. (this is true, but I mean to make light.. not start a fight).

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

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.

That doesn't cover everything, but is, I think, a substantial counter point.

I'd probably want someone who has a GRC to get a choice of which gender prison they go to. — fdrake

That's fucking wild. Convicted criminals shouldn't (and really, do not) get hte privilege of choosing their incarceration terms. You do not, as a convicted criminal (particularly when the majority seem to be sex crimes (we've been there - I know your position. this is mine)), get to tell others where you're going to serve your term. That is absolutely beyond the pale as far as i'm concerned. There's a reason Isla Bryson was removed.

Even then I don't think this one would matter much for domestic abuse support groups. — fdrake

I think you maybe don't take that issue as seriously as you should. Would you views change if the issue was a domestic abuse shelter or a rape crisis shelter? Please answer, as there are several very interesting follow-ups I'd like to pry into here.

that should also apply to women who provide such risks — fdrake

The difference in ratio of males and females who present this risk vastly outweighs an appeal to logical consistency. Your point is taken, but as with sports, women involved have signed up to be involved with women(read: females). Males, and their inherent risk profile are not within that scope and so present an unfair risk rather than a risk that is taken by being a female criminal. Does that maybe clarify at least what the argument is?

there is something uniquely risky about trans women — fdrake

There is. Whether this is just that there's a 'unknown" aspect, or whether it is the empirical fact that they are more likely to commit a sex crime than even non-trans males, there is. This is an unavoidable issue on the facts. What we do about it is where the conversation starts. I think this is what frustrates most attempts to come to terms. At least admit hte bloody facts and we can get on with it... sort of thing.

is already subject to social condemnation, revulsion and hatred — unenlightened

Sorry about the glibness - but what are you talking about here? Truly don't get it. Are you saying that anyone who doesn't fit typical physical appearance suffers hate? That seems... an extreme overstatement (that is not to say it doesn't occur, at all).

I apologise, it was a bit pointed. — unenlightened

No need! It was funny :)

The UK law in effect forces such people into places where that hatred and revulsion will be worst. — unenlightened

Nope.

meant they couldn't tell if I was a boy or a girl — unenlightened

Do you truly think this is what was being said? Or was this used as hyperbole to represent an arbitrary dissatisfaction with your long hair? Because, I can tell you, long hair does not change one's ability to assess sex. That is .... bizarre to claim.

"If you can't tell, it is none of your business." I still maintain that. — unenlightened

And this is why I ask the above: for trans people, I have never met a trans person who 'passes'. I've even delved into the internet culture of passing, and I have never been 'got' by someone 'passing'. Granted, that's a situation of scrutiny - which generally wont happen in the real world. But heres the thing: under these laws, if you pass, no one will ask, and you can get on with it. So, that's perfect. But if you don't, then it's not your choice.

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

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason for privacy in ablutions is to avoid rape during ablutions? Hygiene is the largest motivating factor, as was the development of private plumbing and the general rise in quality of private homes (thus, not requiring one to perambulate to take a piss cleanly).

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

I don't think it's odd at all. 98% of people identify strongly with their sex, and so express that. There is far, far, FAR less oppression and pressure involved in gender presentation, than is currently assumed by activist groups. The areas of the world which have been left the most alone in terms of forcing gender roles (though, a further comment someone pooh-poohs this) have resulted in larger differences between genders. That said, those societies (Scandinavian, generally) actually enforce female representation in many ways. I think that's wrong, but ignoring my stance that clearly shows that social pressure around sex and gender is fine, if you agree with it.

Seems sort of vague. — substantivalism

I don't think so. It might be in terms of predictive power, but every person knows what those two benchmarks are for themselves. Even "norms" differ from person to person within a society.

sorties series of conflict percentages and when it gets high enough to actually warrant said action. — substantivalism

I assume you mean sorities - this isn't relevant. My previous comment should clear that up. The "vagueness" is somewhat baked-in to the concept because "other minds" can't be read.

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

I want to be careful how I address this, because in some sense I hear, and agree with this - but is this a Tachellesque appeal to empathy for people who fuck kids? Cause, no bro. That said, the bolded is an extremely good point for other reasons: I want to know who my local sex offenders are. When we can't tell who is who, we should be:

Reducing the number of POTENTIAL offenders — substantivalism

So, it may be we agree entirely.

Do you see the tremendous social/cultural task before us now? — substantivalism

I'm not sure you finished your previous thought, but I am a pro-legalization of all non-medically-developed drugs basically. Recreational drugs being legal would let us seek help, provide help and approach produces much more readily.
This is not in any way analogous to the issues before us here.

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

I think the incidence isn't particularly relevant for exclusion, honestly. The argument roughly goes that the trans woman appears as a man to attendees and is thus unsafe. Which isn't really an argument, but I'm not going to convince you of that.

Regardless, the idea that domestic abuse in itself is committed more often by men is at best misleading. There's a pretty big meta analysis on intimate partner violence papers here.

For size:

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.

For outcome:

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.

Women in the aggregate commit more acts of intimate partner violence and do them more often in relationships.

Notice that this doesn't imply anything about whether trans women should be able to attend domestic abuse support groups...

women’s violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them by their male partner — here

Yes. The idea of defensive domestic abuse.

I think it is reasonable to understand that women who have suffer severe domestic abuse from men may feel somewhat uneasy about being around trans women. This may not be completely rational, just as fearing all men would be, but given the psychological damage suffered it is perfectly understandable. In counter to this, I would not suggest that excluding ALL trans women from domestic abuse support groups ALWAYS is anything like a good idea either.

I think the major problem with all of this is we are dealing with a fringe minority and so case by case instances being far fewer leads to greater misconceptions. I imagine the interpretation of statistical facts is where Amadeus would make a counter argument.

When it comes to imprisonment my initial reaction would be that violent and sexual crimes means you have effectively crossed a line. If a trans woman goes to prison for any other crime I do not really see any problem with them being placed in a prison with women. However, this should be on a case by case basis not a one rule fits all (as with most criminal convictions).

Probably the most pressing matter - strangely not discussed - is that of employment and persons being passed over simply because they are trans. This is a tricky double-edged sword just as it is with issues of race. Some will try to abuse the system to get what they believe they deserve. Some are taken in by a sense of victimhood.

Overall, it seems this is just a phase people tend to go through (usually in young adulthood). What can actually be done about this? I am at a loss. I guess we just have to keep on discussing, try to listen more effectively, and not get bogged down in semi-redundant specifics too much. Meaning, avoid applying very particular cases to broader representations of societal (dys)function.