I'm not either. I'm glad they have an interdisciplinary team to make the decisions instead of the local mob. — frank

I would prefer men and women to be kept separate. If the law states that isn’t necessary then so be it. Happily in Uk, they keep penises away from women’s prisons. It will be interesting to see how the recent ruling will affect the issue.

Huh. We're more woke than you guys, and I'm in a red state. Although, I have a feeling our medium and max security prisons are more violent than yours.

uh. We're more woke than you guys, and I'm in a red state. Although, I have a feeling our medium and max security prisons are more violent than yours. — frank

You do put an awful lot of people behind bars.

You do put an awful lot of people behind bars — Malcolm Parry

We're crazy as fuck.

We're crazy as fuck. — frank

Always fascinating but I don’t think I’ll be visiting again any time soon.

The Grand Canyon is cool. Very touristy though.

I agree with some of what you say regarding trans, but do you think there is still systemic racism in this country against blacks? Do you think the fact we've never had a woman president is indicative of anything? Do you think the fact that Congress and the leadership of Fortune500 companies are disproportionately made up of white males is indicative of anything? — RogueAI

Hey Rogue,

I have a problem with the term 'systemic racism', or at least, how the term is used. So no, I don't think we have 'systemic racism' in Canada or the US, because that implies someone has built this system, on racist principles, when I think the primary 'systemic' power issue is social class.

Racism? Real and dreadful. Systemic racism? maybe not a thing? I don't see it here in Canada, anyway.

Clinton and Harris were the only two female candidates for president, no? Both were pretty terrible candidates. Here in Canada, we had a female PM, briefly. She too was not a great candidate.

I don't know if that's the right question. I think the US would totally elect a female president today, were a strong candidate to appear.

the makeup of congress and the Fortune500 is of interest to McKinsey and technocratic neoliberals, but like Adolph Reed and Walter Benn Michaels argue, what does diversity in elite circles due to reduce inequality as a whole? Nothing.

Overall, I think the project of wokeness is neoliberal and technocratic, serving as a substitute for meaningful class-based social justice.

What do you think?

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. — AmadeusD

The law and public policy demand no vagueness. Start writing and start defending.

You are in office and the public demands you don't sit on your a**. What do you do?

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. — AmadeusD

I agree, there should be a public database of those who have committed offenses. . . and those who haven't.

Violent and discordant tendencies demand and rather revoke a sense of attorney client protection or medical privacy when it concerns this as such.

If someone has said pedophilic tendencies, mentioned rape fantasies to a therapist, diagnosed as suffering from high order anti-social disorder, is a fire-bug, etc. Have it out there. Nothing to fear from transparency to the unlawful and the sickly of our society.

That way nature can take its proper course.

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. — AmadeusD

It's how to move beyond them. We already understand well enough how to legally punish those who violate said norms.

In fact, here is a common case of mob lynching in Mexico but as regards accused child kidnappers.

You don't need new focus in that area as we can easily arm ourselves.

It's in. . . finding and cataloging those who haven't been unlawful. . . yet that is.

You and the other person I responded to are too focused on being retroactive. It’s the most common response to these issues and the easiest. It's in being proactive and preventative that the true difficulty lies. That is where true societal growth can be had.

Hey Rogue,

I have a problem with the term 'systemic racism', or at least, how the term is used. So no, I don't think we have 'systemic racism' in Canada or the US, because that implies someone has built this system, on racist principles, when I think the primary 'systemic' power issue is social class.

Racism? Real and dreadful. Systemic racism? maybe not a thing? I don't see it here in Canada, anyway. — Jeremy Murray

Did you guys have anything like separate-but-equal? I see systemic racism as simply meaning there are many racist people in positions of power in all walks of life that reflexively make decisions against black people. They may not even be aware they're doing it. For example, if two people are applying for an apartment [ETA to add: "all else being equal"], and one is named Mary and the other Shaniqua, there's a bias against the Shaniqua's of the world. In my lifetime, blacks couldn't be priests in the Mormon church. In my mom's lifetime, blacks were legally discriminated against in the South and couldn't go to the same schools as whites. She remembers the Emmet Till lynching. I think pervasive racism like that takes a long time to wash out of a society, if it ever does.

In my line of work (teaching), I've worked with several very racist teachers. They got along well with black students who behaved themselves, but if you were black in their class, and you were a troublemaker, there was no mercy. And this is Southern California we're talking about.

Clinton and Harris were the only two female candidates for president, no? Both were pretty terrible candidates. — Jeremy Murray

The fact we've only had two female candidates for president in the history of the country is pretty indicative of how this country feels about women in leadership roles. Growing up in the 70's and 80's there was just this understanding that the president was going to be a man. Geraldine Ferraro made a big splash when she became the first female VP candidate and her ticket went on to get absolutely destroyed in 1984. It was the worst electoral vote shellacking ever. That was it for female high-office candidates for another 24 years. The Democrat party is OK with women in power now, but Republicans remain overwhelmingly male-centric. In the U.S. Senate, out of 53 Republican Senators, 43 are men. The GOP is heavily evangelical Christian, so the fact they're not comfortable with women leaders isn't surprising.

There are 10 states in America with abortion laws with no exceptions for rape. Does Canada have anything like that? And the fact that Trump could survive the Access Hollywood tape, and win, says a lot. Are you familiar with Andrew Tate and his popularity in MAGA world?

I have a problem with the term 'systemic racism', or at least, how the term is used. So no, I don't think we have 'systemic racism' in Canada or the US, because that implies someone has built this system, on racist principles, when I think the primary 'systemic' power issue is social class.

Racism? Real and dreadful. Systemic racism? maybe not a thing? I don't see it here in Canada, anyway.

What do you think 'systemic racism' means?

What is your point. I simply said anyone can dress up as the opposite sex and enter another toilet. If you can literally not tell the difference there is no way of policing this.

I don't know about you, but I have seen plenty of gay men entering female toilets with their girl friends. Illegal? Yes. Does anyone really care that much to enforce it? No.

No matter what the laws are people will go on being people and work things out in their own way.

Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions.
— Harry Hindu

You think having 'disabled toilets' functioning as 'universal toilets' is equivalent to stating gender and sex are the same thing? Are you taking the piss? ;) — I like sushi

My point is that bathrooms and sports are separated by biology, not gender. If sex and gender are separate then why is it so difficult to make a meaningful distinction between them?

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? — substantivalism

Yet we use xray machines to determine who has a weapon before entering a building or airplane. Similar devices can be added to the entrances of bathrooms where it detects if one is a male or female. There doesn't even need to be a human being to monitor it, so we don't need humans looking in anyone's pants before entering a public restroom.

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? — substantivalism

For the purpose of taking a piss or shit, yes, people should be separated. When it comes to determining what is best for the future of humanity, and a great many other things, no.

My point is that bathrooms and sports are separated by biology, not gender. If sex and gender are separate then why is it so difficult to make a meaningful distinction between them? — Harry Hindu

A meaningful question to ask is why we have such separations.

For sports it's to give biological women a competitive chance, and that may be a reason to exclude trans women from women's sports. But then what about trans men? They're biological women, so ought they compete in women's sports? Or do we say that trans men who have taken hormones to transition into a man must compete in men's sports?

For bathrooms it may be something to do with "decency" or safety, but that may be a reason to allow trans women (esp. post-surgery) to use women's bathrooms and trans men (esp. post-surgery) to use men's bathrooms, and so bathrooms ought not be separated by biology but by something else (e.g. outward appearance, even if "artificial"). Of course, the difficulty then comes in how such things can be policed. Ought everyone be subject to genital inspection before and/or after using a public bathroom?

For the purpose of taking a piss or shit, yes, people should be separated. — Harry Hindu

Why can't separate stalls, with walls and doors that reach to the floor, suffice? I seen no reason to segregate hand-washing. I've been to bars that have two separate toilet facilities, but a common hand-washing area.

My point is that bathrooms and sports are separated by biology, not gender. If sex and gender are separate then why is it so difficult to make a meaningful distinction between them? — Harry Hindu

So. . . if I created say. . . a bathroom that was able to be used by both sexes and anybody with a disability then we wouldn't need to separate them.

All it needs is a tampon dispenser, a few urinals, toilets, a larger stall for those with disabilities, and an infant changing station in there as well.

Why do you separate them? I'll answer that. . . its because of the male on women assaults'. That is "why", else we wouldn't.

Now we need to solve this male assault problem so that such places are statistically not considered a danger. Are you going to propose a solution now. . . after so many posts not doing so?

Yet we use xray machines to determine who has a weapon before entering a building or airplane. Similar devices can be added to the entrances of bathrooms where it detects if one is a male or female. There doesn't even need to be a human being to monitor it, so we don't need humans looking in anyone's pants before entering a public restroom. — Harry Hindu

So. . . your solution as to why male assaults is so prevalent and how to solve this epidemic is to just put cameras or xray machines facing bathroom entrances.

So is the only way to solve the male asymmetry in assaults' is to use women as bait and wait for these offenders to jail themselves after they have or just nearly did assault someone? Brilliant strategy there.

For the purpose of taking a piss or shit, yes, people should be separated. When it comes to determining what is best for the future of humanity, and a great many other things, no. — Harry Hindu

They should be separated because men are notorious rapists. . . how do we reduce the number of potential rapists? Why are you silent on solving the male assault epidemic?

@Michael Look out! One trans-person is already using all bathrooms at once simultaneously. So says this reputable news source.

@Harry Hindu I presume you understand. . . that even if we segregate said areas that any individuals who potentially could have assaulted are still out there and we need to now reduce that number. So this discussion should concern that now.

Here, I google searched for you and found an editorial from the NIH which says,

Investigating crimes and prosecuting offenders is important, but given the potentially enduring impact of sexual violence on victims, prevention is more important.

. . . and. . .

The next step is to increase funding and resources to carry out large-scale intervention studies that draw on existing knowledge to reduce the incidence of (i.e., prevent) sexual violence. Given its human impact and cost, randomized control trials of more than 43 000 participants, as was recently achieved in just one COVID-19 phase III vaccine trial, should be commonplace in the field of sexual violence prevention. Longitudinal studies tracking the effectiveness of prevention programs over time and how to boost their efficacy should also be commonplace. Simultaneously, increased funding and resources should be allocated to basic research to identify other factors that contribute to power differentials and sexual violence perpetration, the improvement of existing intervention models, and the piloting of novel interventions. The speed with which the evidence base for large-scale prevention accumulates will be determined by the resources we devote to researching the problem. We are getting there, but there is much more work to do.

Literally some more searching on the topic found me this article here. Where they talk about preventative instructive programs for high school athletes or young adults in general such as the Manhood 2.0 project. You can get the whole pdf here on said curriculum.

Here is one primarily concerned with college men as a preventative program against committing sexual assault themselves as much as not being a bystander or how to care for those who have been raped.

Is it good, bad, what is missing? What else are we supposed to do?

One could also argue that whoever owns the toilet should decide. If it's a public toilet, it belongs to the tax payers, so let them vote and decide how it should be used.

If you decide not to do it that way, the question would be: why not? On what basis do we reject the public will? Is it because the public is danger of violating someone's rights?

One could also argue that whoever owns the toilet should decide. If it's a public toilet, it belongs to the tax payers, so let them vote and decide how it should be used.

If you decide not to do it that way, the question would be: why not? On what basis do we reject the public will? Is it because the public is danger of violating someone's rights? — frank

Whites only

Whites only — Michael

Civil rights.

I don't disagree with the idea that genetic, genital, hormonal and gonadal sex are 1) almost always in agreement and 2) have definite medical importance. However, social, emotional and mental sex can differ from the above which also has it's importance.

No, I've never personally delivered a case of ambiguous genetalia. I had a close call once, but it ended up being a clerical error (of some importance). Long story...

However, social, emotional and mental sex can differ from the above which also has it's importance. — LuckyR

Not in sport and not in society when it comes to social norms around women’s right to certain exclusive places.
What about social, emotional and mental sex are different? I just see these as outmoded sexist tropes. Men tend toward traditional masculine pursuits but those that don’t are still men. Women who tend toward masculine pursuits are still women. There still needs to be a distinction for sport and changing/toilet/shelters. For fairness, for safety and for dignity. I don’t see this as controversial.

I wrote in plain English. It shouldn't be too hard to see how you sidestepped the main thrust of the logic.

For the sake of clarity, if there is no discernable difference, then what is the harm of trans women entering a competition for women if that is where they feel they belong? To repeat. I am talking about situations where there are mixed, female only and male only competitions.

Perhaps the reasoning is not as obvious to others as I first thought. If the choice is effectively arbitrary then it does not matter where people compete. In fact, it makes little sense to have male or female only competitions other than to follow a cultural tradition. Given that trans women classify themselves as a types of women (if not biologically female) and wish to be treated as trans women - not men in dressed - then the only reason I can see to bar them is pure prejudice.

Of course, you could argue that a man could join the women's competition too. Why not? It would make a whole lot more sense if there were no such categorical distinction if the differences in ability between the sexes was non-existent. The one situation where most of the push back comes from is that feminist movements to bring women into sports after centuries of suppression could suffer from a few trans women competing and winning. Such could be viewed as males actively suppressing women in sports. This is understandable to some degree (as financial rewards may be given to trans women instead of women). I do wonder if trans women would be willing to compete for the sake of competing without taking any monetary reward - it would be a nice gesture maybe. What also needs to be understood is that suppression of a smaller minority can be seen as just as needless. Nuances are nuances. My interest in more analytic than anything else. I am neither a woman nor a a trans woman. I have travelled enough around the world to see different attitudes to the phenomenon of transgenderism. One of the most striking things I have experienced was in Manila. There it is VERY unusual if you do not come across several trans women everyday. Why is it so common there? I have no idea. it seems strange that in a Catholic country where there is suppression of homosexuality in the power high up, that at the day-to-day experience it is more common than anywhere else I have ever visited.

Now, in comparison, if we are talking about domestic abuse where some women feel actively threatened by trans women it does make sense to also use some basic level of respect and tolerate the threat they feel if they have literally suffered severe abuse and it makes them mentally unstable and insecure.

I am NOT talking about any of this as a one way street. Plenty of trans women do not think of themselves as female and actual women, they are quite happy to state they merely wish to be treated as women, within certain limitations, and respect as a human being.

Trans women who say they are literally women do not really have my support.
Trans women who say they wish merely to be treated as if they are women have my support.
Understandably there are many grey areas and I would be against either of the above statements depending on the circumstances.

Circumstances and case by case analysis matter.

Honestly, I do not think I have a lot more to say about this. It is one curiosity of many for me not an obsession.

For the sake of clarity, if there is no discernable difference, — I like sushi

I replied saying that there isn't a sport where there is no discernable difference and if there was there was no point in having a female category. If there was a female category in such a sport why would a trans woman need or wish to compete in that category?
There was no side stepping.

If the choice is effectively arbitrary then it does not matter where people compete. — I like sushi

I agree 100% but it never is. IMHO.

Given that trans women classify themselves as a types of women (if not biologically female) and wish to be treated as trans women - not men in dressed - then the only reason I can see to bar them is pure prejudice. — I like sushi

Why is it prejudice to not recognise trans women as women? They are not women.

I am NOT talking about any of this as a one way street. Plenty of trans women do not think of themselves as female and actual women, they are quite happy to state they merely wish to be treated as women, within certain limitations, and respect as a human being. — I like sushi

I am not taking it as a one way street. Trans women can dress, act and be whoever they wish to be. They just are not women. Biology is far from the determinant factor. It is in sports but everything else, society molds us all. If it were socially acceptable to be naked around each other no one would bat an eyelid. However, it is not. If all men were respectful towards women and women had nothing to fear and could walk wherever they wished at any time of day or night then there would be no need for women only spaces. However, the world is not like that.
In sport biology matters. Everything else it is societal factors that need considering. If all women were happy to accomodate males in their exclusive places then all is well.

Everything else it is societal factors that need considering. If all women were happy to accomodate males in their exclusive places then all is well. — Malcolm Parry

Yes. Trans women are a special case of males though. The reason trans women are trans women is because they are trans women. They are not women. They are not men. They are viewed as being biological men but they are not men in the social sense.

It is uncivil to treat someone who wishes to be treated one way another way simply because it displeases you. If it is about fairness - say in sports - fair enough. If it is about treating someone with respect and dignity I see no real issue. We are not talking about delusional people, we are talking about people who feel a certain way and only want a modicum of social acceptance ... of course there are always agitators though.

If I was transgendered I am not sure how I would feel about all the attention right now. I guess it is good in one way and bad in another. The issue used as a political weapon does at least mean it has crested the hill of general acceptance.

I was honestly expecting the next big -ism in social debate to be ageism.

Trans women are a special case of males though — I like sushi

In what way are they special? Over and above any other special case?

The reason trans women are trans women is because they are trans women. They are not women. — I like sushi

Agreed 100%

It is uncivil to treat someone who wishes to be treated one way another way simply because it displeases you. — I like sushi

Do you think some women want trans women excluded from their exclusive places because it displeases them? Do you see no discomfort or risk from allowing males in changing rooms etc?

If it is about treating someone with respect and dignity I see no real issue — I like sushi

What about treating women with dignity and respect?

We are not talking about delusional people, we are talking about people who feel a certain way and only want a modicum of social acceptance — I like sushi

I think they are deluded to think of themselves as a woman and expect women to accomodate their wishes.

of course there are always agitators though. — I like sushi

Not just agitators but weirdos who will impersonate a genuine trans women for nefarious gratifications.

Do you see no discomfort or risk from allowing males in changing rooms etc? — Malcolm Parry

If they've had surgery, how would you know?

What about trans men (esp. after hormones and surgery)? Ought they use women's changing rooms because they're biological women?

If they've had surgery, how would you know?

What about trans men (esp. after hormones and surgery)? Ought they use women's changing rooms because they're biological women? — Michael

If a person looks like a woman then there would be no issue. Society isn't spending billions on gender recognition measures to eradicate men who look like women from using bathrooms. Most trans women do not look like women.

I see no issue with trans men using the male changing room. They pose no potential threat and men have a different attitude to females in their private spaces. Women in our society are more vulnerable and there are social mores that mean they are uncomfortable with men around these places.
If a trans man wants to use a women's restroom they have every right should they wish. No idea why they would.

If a person looks like a woman then there would be no issue. — Malcolm Parry

Well then now we get into murky territory. Who gets to decide whether or not a trans woman looks enough like a woman to use the women's changing room? Different people might have different opinions. And sometimes cisgender women are mistaken for men.

If a trans man wants to use a women's restroom they have every right should they wish. — Malcolm Parry

If a trans man (after having surgery) is indistinguishable from a cis man, then what rationale is there for allowing trans men in women's changing rooms but not cis men? We don't carry out genetic testing whenever someone enters the room, so no third party is going to know. The cis woman isn't going to know that the muscular, bearded person changing next to them was actually born a woman, and is going to be as uncomfortable with them being there as they would be a cis man being there.

Well then now we get into murky territory. Who gets to decide whether or not a trans woman looks enough like a woman to use the women's changing room? Different people might have different opinions. And sometimes cisgender women are mistaken for men. — Michael

I think in 99.99% of the time it is obvious. There has been no issue. No murky territory.

Why would manly looking women now be an issue since it hasn't been before?

You seem somewhat bothered by something. Not sure what it is.

Anyway, you can have the last word. Bye have fun

If a trans man (after having surgery) is indistinguishable from a cis man, then what rationale is there for allowing trans men in women's changing rooms but not cis men? — Michael

Because they are a woman. They have every right to use a female space.