I think our best bet is to put together effective, democratic, humane governments. — BC

How? Is that happening right now? If so, where? And how successfully? IOW - how long do you think it will take?

) Reform government to stop conflict, persecution, economic exploitation — PhilosophyRunner

Not reform - abolish.

2) Somehow combine current countries to make a global government — PhilosophyRunner

Not combine; break 'em down. The US should be at least eight separate countries, maybe more. Canada should be at least five. Australia, maybe only two, but I'm not sure. China, probably seven. States, provinces, principalities, regions, tribes, whatever social units were viable before federations and empires subsumed them, each one to become a self-designated, self-governing nation. Make all the little, workable nations independent, except for two things: international conflict, which must come under arbitration, and human rights, which are to be enforced by interpol.

"Effective, democratic, humane government" does not guarantee peace, even if it is the best government possible. — BC

Right. So, business, conflict, persecution, economic exploitation as usual, until the climate puts an end to us - or our super weapons do. Fair enough.

The "idea" of one-world-government sounds great, at first glance. in a perfect world, with perfect people, and perfect systems, it could work. Alas, there is no perfection here. — BC

Cannot be the same be said of nations, democracy and civilization? Nothing humans do will ever work as we hope and plan. But we keep trying things anyway.

Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult. — BC

How long, do you figure, before that's all perfected enough to give up standing armies?

I think the UN Declaration of Human Rights serves individual liberty better than the legal codes of many - ?most - sovereign nations.
A federation doesn't necessarily mean homogeneous centralization. In North America, states and provinces have considerable powers of internal governance; even counties and townships, not to mention incorporated cities, exercise a recognized degree of self-regulation. World government doesn't have to mean that all tribes are abolished; it can mean that all tribes have equal status; the Chinese don't get to terrorize the Nepalese and bully the Uyghur; the Fulani and and Igbo would not be stuck inside the same national borders. Grudge-wars have never been a very efficient road to self-determination.

Ah. I have an idea how it's likely to go...if it goes. Clash of the realms.

It's as if Jesus knew he had to break the laws of all the sciences we know of in the 21st century — Agent Smith

Maybe he had inside information?

What's the objective of this inquiry?

That you consider that request for a definition "not great".

I'm not seeing Bill Nye's role in the attack.
I get that miracles contravene the rules of physics, chemistry and biology. Jesus had nothing to do with that trinity business, but he sure did a number on math when he served all those fish sandwiches.
But isn't that the whole point of miracles?

Okay.

What is "great"?

Who attacked whom?

Your responses have been unhelpful so far but are you saying the majority of people should suppress or tone down their identities for a minority? — Andrew4Handel

Not at all. I'm not telling the majority what they should do. I'm not telling any minority what they should do. I'm not telling anyone how they should feel, how they should conduct their private lives, or what norms they should conform to.

I want more evidence that you are committed to subjectivity and respecting peoples inner worlds. — Andrew4Handel

You will want in vain.

Unfortunately society does not work on that basis it works on useful generalities. We can only go so far to cater for everyone's unique identity. — Andrew4Handel

Pity!

your average man or women. — Andrew4Handel

I don't have either. Why do you?

Only the person living inside a body can really know how living in that body feels. — Vera Mont

What does that mean? — Andrew4Handel

It means you don't know, the parents don't know, the GP doesn't know, the psychiatrist doesn't know, the cleric doesn't know, the journalist doesn't know, the MP doesn't know. Yet all these unknowing people are sitting in judgment.

It is is irrelevant anyway to the majority of people who are happy being male or female and who exhibit common traits of their sex. — Andrew4Handel

Unless they either care about the welfare of their fellow humans, or want the power to shove their fellow human beings into assigned roles.

Are you saying being born male or female is birth defect? — Andrew4Handel

Could be. Nature is imperfect; reproduction is chancy; genetic errors are not unusual. Only the person living inside a body can really know how living in that body feels.

We all have our sex imposed on us by biology at birth — Andrew4Handel

Also birth defects, but many of these can be surgically corrected. I think that if someone who is suffering can be repaired, we should repair them.

I wonder whether as societies grow larger, they are less able to take into consideration the needs of their individual members, because it seems as though the gap between reality and societal norms increases. — Tzeentch

The factors for increased policing seem (from historical evidence) to be: population numbers, social stratification, complexity and diversity.
Say a small tribe of nomadic herdsmen, in a time of drought, joins a larger tribe of settled agrarian people. They each had the code of law appropriate to their respective lifestyle, world-view, marital and social relations, concept of property, conflict resolution, etc. Now, they all have to live under agrarian law, with its emphasis on land ownership and inheritance, long-term planning, stability and security - which is far more restrictive than herding people are used to. There will be interpersonal conflicts and law-breaking and that will prompt the anxious farmers to demand more punitive enforcement, which engenders resentment in the minority, who feel they are treated unfairly, which prompts the young hot-heads among them to commit deliberate acts of defiance... and so it escalates.

I think it is a shame that we cannot state or celebrate the positive differences between males or females. — Andrew4Handel

Nobody's preventing such a celebration. Just don't accept enthusiastic cheering from people who are forced into a role they did not freely choose.

Unethical, criminal and unlawful are not interchangeable words. Much unethical activity is perfectly legal; in fact, it's sometimes committed by the very people who make, enforce and administer laws, and they are rarely punished. 'Criminal' is generally used to denote any act for which a person in convicted in a court of law, but I distinguish criminal behaviour from unlawful by the value of the law that's being enforced. Some laws are unnecessary; breaking them does no harm to society or other individuals, and some laws are just plain wrong; breaking them is the ethical thing to do.

I do not believe that humans - or any other social animal - would run around destroying their communities if not restrained by police truncheons and prison bars. I believe people are quite capable of forming social contracts that work with minimal coercion. Unless, of course, the contract so heavily favours one party that the other or others feel they cannot get what they need unless they take it by force.

And then, of course, human introduce a wild card that other animals don't have to contend with: the crazy-making factor. While other parents teach their young how to find food and avoid predators, human start lying to their young as soon as their eyes open - and the lies never stop. The width of the gap between perceived reality and internalized social fictions tends to determine the craziness of the individual, and the craziness, coupled with environmental circumstances, determines the type of unethical, criminal or illegal activity in which individual expresses his or her malaise.

I have to say the movement isn't really vocal in the Netherlands or I haven't been paying attention. — Benkei

I suspect it's because the rules are sensible and there isn't a big backlash against gender-nonconformism in general. I guess it must be the same in Canada, though we have some loud assholes who demand a reset to 1900 CE - and a smaller faction that's holding out for 1600.

If there was no deterrent to crime, we could not have a safe society. — khaled

And with all the deterrents, we do not have a safe society. When drawing and quartering was on the books; when people had their hands chopped off for theft; where people are beheaded for drug trafficking; when people were burned at the stake for professing other than the party line - none of those were or are safe societies. Punishment, and severity of punishment have never stopped people breaking the law.

Personally, I think forgiveness is only virtuous if the criminal has changed. — khaled

That's what parole boards usually assume. Those who are charge with the administration of justice want to hear confession and contrition from the prisoner they consider releasing. But, oddly enough, some priests, who are in the confession and contrition business, forgive a transgression, in order to help the offender see the error of his ways. Punishment and rejection further alienate an already disaffected member of society; severe punishment can turn him into an active enemy of the existing structure. To imprison large numbers of disaffected men in harsh conditions for years on end is to build a hostile army in the very heart of one's nation.

The main point of eye for an eye is deterrence, if it doesn't do that, then what's the point? — khaled

The point is for the state to express the anger of the victims through formal procedures, rather than have them express it privately, which can lead to even worse outcomes.
But the law and law-enforcement agents do not confine themselves to stopping physical conflict among the population. It spends a good deal of its effort and resources on protecting property, safeguarding privilege and upholding social norms standards. The vast majority of law, both on the books and in the courts, concerns itself with matters unrelated to physical harm done by one person to another.

How bystanders and witnesses react is entirely personal - dependent on things like whether they are more afraid of the criminal or the police; whether they themselves have grudges and sympathies.

Forgiveness is of course the real virtue, but it is a much more complicated concept than it is often given credit for. — Tzeentch

It is also a very important part of recovery and rehabilitation - in the treatment of addiction, despair, depression, harms that stem from deeply held festering anger and resentment, in changing attitude and behaviour.
That doesn't mean it's simple or easy to achieve.

There is one concept of justice. There is disagreement about precisely what answers to it. — Bartricks

Okay. Unfortunately, the Manitoba Implementation of justice Committee submitted this report in 1999. Perhaps they should have called the report First Nations Approach to Crime and Misconduct, but it's too late to set them straight.

Here is a different perspective.
ABORIGINAL CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE

At the most basic level of understanding, justice is understood differently by Aboriginal people. The dominant society tries to control actions it considers potentially or actually harmful to society as a whole, to individuals or to the wrongdoers themselves by interdiction, enforcement or apprehension, in order to prevent or punish harmful or deviant behaviour. The emphasis is on the punishment of the deviant as a means of making that person conform, or as a means of protecting other members of society.

The purpose of a justice system in an Aboriginal society is to restore the peace and equilibrium within the community, and to reconcile the accused with his or her own conscience and with the individual or family who has been wronged. This is a primary difference. It is a difference that significantly challenges the appropriateness of the present legal and justice system for Aboriginal people in the resolution of conflict, the reconciliation and the maintenance of community harmony and good order.

There is a huge gap between tribal justice and city-state law-enforcement, because they serve different purposes in very different kinds of society.

Allowing men to identify legally and socially as women is objectively harmful. — Andrew4Handel

Nor do I doubt that those who can and will never accept transsexual conduct by biological males and females are sincere in their opinion. — Vera Mont

...to be rhetorical. — Isaac

It wasn't. These are important questions.

f not, then...who else is being harmed?
All other transexuals, depressed people, autistics, schizophrenics, anorexics, bulimics...and so on. Basically anyone who really ought to benefit from society adapting to their neurodiversity but instead now suffers from an increase in the trend to see the fault as being located in their biology, not society's attitude toward them. — Isaac

All that harm is being done by a few thousand people being surgically altered? Interesting opinion, and I have no doubt it's sincere. Nor do I doubt that those who can and will never accept transsexual conduct by biological males and females are sincere in their opinion.

Money and damages can be revoked/returned by man upon introduction of knowledge forthcoming/a larger picture. Life cannot. — Outlander

It was in Leviticus - a whole list of compensations to the victim's family for manslaughter, plus guilt offerings to God. Farming and herding societies were more pragmatic than are industrial/clerical societies in the valuation of life and limb.
Murder charges constitute a fairly small percentage of criminal justice proceedings; those and perhaps grievous bodily harm, might be handled as a separate category. Even so, the killer would be more useful to society performing the work of his or her victim than sitting in a vastly overpriced room for 25 years. And, of course, the question of revenge killing arises. Should the state carry it out? Or a member of the victim's family? Or the public, say by stoning or firing squad? Each approach has its advocates and detractors.

You seem pretty adamant about the lack of harms — Isaac

Where was that? I recall wanting to weigh the harms against the benefits; not denying that people are harmed by other people, but asking in each case: Who benefits? Who is harmed?

If you don't punch them back, and think of yourself as superior or elite because you can practice self restraint, this looking down on them, if you believe you are no longer equals, are you any better than them? — Benj96

No, but if that gives you satisfaction, you are better off than they are. Restraint may have other motivations than a feeling of moral superiority. It may be enjoined by your creed or ideology or strategy. (Our NYE entertainment was both reels of Gandhi Add to your quotes: "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.")

And then in society at large we call it justice, and it's represented by a balance of weights, like an equilibrium. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. — Benj96

It's rarely even close to equal. Formal justice systems are a feature of stratified, specialized, civilized societies, where people are far from equal - as are the punishments meted out to those who transgress the law. Of course, the law itself is neither fair nor practical, in most civilized societies.
How justice/retribution/response to personal injury is organized in a society depends on it economic structure and world-view: in one society, crime against property is taken very seriously, while wife- and child- and servant-beating are quite legal and fights between men of equal rank, the norm; in another, personal injury is the most punished crime.

We accept this form of justice because "good people" or at least "law abiding citizens" can be sure that if they are harmed by bad or unlawful people, bad things will happen to those people on your behalf. — Benj96

It's because we are a society of strangers. We are distrustful and afraid of our fellow citizens. We are told, and want to believe, that punishing criminals deters them from committing more crimes. This is not really the case - even less so, if we criminalize natural and harmless activities - but having armed police and robed judges and bars on the prison windows affords us a sense of security.
Some law-abiding citizens do feel very strongly about retribution, but I think for most people, it's enough to know that a felon behind bars is one felon from whom they are safe. That's why so many oppose lighter sentences and early parole.

would the best citizens not be those who endure punishment despite having done nothing wrong, and then "forgive and forget". — Benj96

Well, there was that one guy with cheeks to spare, and he started a fad in martyrdom, but most people can't really carry it out.

The strange thing there is that if someone forgives and forgets when they get stolen from - say a few hundred bucks, it's admirable to a lot of people. — Benj96

You can forgive - either in gesture or sincerely - but you can never forget. It's a lot easier to forgive if you understand their motivation as compelling enough that you, too, might be tempted to steal in their situation. It's harder to forgive a strong person stealing from you than a weaker one, not just because we despise cowardice even more than theft, but because there is an element of fear - the bully will return for more - and shame - that you were unable to defend yourself. It's harder to forgive an able-bodied adult than a sickly one or a child. It's too difficult to forgive a rich man stealing from a poor one - so we call that something other stealing.

All the legal system can offer you in return for you being harmed by another, is revenge of some form. — Benj96

There are different legal systems. Ours could use improvement. In civil court, restitution and punitive damages to the plaintiff are the standard forms of resolution. Restitution and damages might also applied in many criminal cases. In minor offenses, we could resort to arbitration, such as the peer-mediation in some schools. And we could start with that approach earlier in life: parents, rather than reprimand the child, could ask: How can you make it up to your brother?

Not as many people would be willing to try and steal it also — Benj96

OTOH, more people would try to eat your pony than your bicycle. But then, more people would try to eat and the dog, as well. It's going to be rough out there. That's why I'm not going; my idea of roughage is whole grain cereal.

If you punch someone back after they punch you? Are you any better than them? — Benj96

You usually don't do it in order to be 'better'; you do it either because you're angry (automatic emotional response) or in order to let them know they can't punch you with impunity. (practical prevention).

There is a lot more of interest here, but I have an errand that can't wait.

Then why should I be required to prove mine to you? — Isaac

You're not. Far from it!

You're suggesting that the most plausible explanation for the near criminal misconduct of the nation's leading gender clinic is that it was just one single bad apple? — Isaac

How should I know all the fuck-ups of your health care system? There may be lots of bad apples misconducting themselves all over the place. Shut down all of the criminal ones.

Moor pony instead of bicycle - it climbs better (you'll need elevation) and can feed itself.

I guess time will tell! — PhilosophyRunner

Listen fast! I don't think you have as much time as you all seem to think you have.

.all offered without a shred of proof nor even any argument. — Isaac

I don't think I should be required to prove my belief and disbelief to you, even if that were possible to do. And, no, I will not attempt to prove that I don't think so.

You've never heard of Tavistock Clinic, sued for medical negligence for doing exactly that, and then promptly shut down after a damning report by the Care Quality Commission? — Isaac

Correct. Woefully behind on UK news. But if it's been shut down, it's presumably stopped encouraging people.

Blaming people's bodies because society won't accept them as such is wrong. Categorically. — Isaac

Yes, I happen to agree, although not everyone agrees on categorical rights and wrongs. And I gather you assume that this blaming of bodies is the sole cause of gender dysphoria. Seems a tad simplistic.

No, it presumes someone is [qualified to assess whether a problem is psychological]. Or rather, someone must. — Isaac

As I understand the situation, that is standard procedure in all gender reassignment cases. It's a process, still being studied, researched and refined. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/discussion-paper-toward-commission-policy-gender-identity/current-issues

Rules and laws can be drafted so as to bring about social change. — Isaac

A law can be drafted 1. to prohibit something, 2. exact something, 3. lift a prohibition or 4. lift an obligation. It is enforced by punishing individuals who 1. do what is forbidden 2. fail to do what is required 3. prevent another from doing that which is permitted.
Eventually and incrementally, laws do contribute to social change and that changes attitudes over time. I suppose a government could pass a law saying: From Monday on, all citizens will be tolerant, but it would be difficult to enforce.

This is the industry you're wanting to entrust with the lifelong 'solution' to gender dysphoria. — Isaac

I'm not wanting anything of the kind. You sure piled a lot of grudges onto a simple argument for personal autonomy! I'm wanting to let people make their own decisions about their lives.
And also to regulate the pharmaceutical industry. And also to stop harmful criminal activity and medical malpractice where possible. But I suspect those three functions come under separate government departments.

I read an article in the news recently in which there is some possibility that the male chromosome may become extinct. — Jack Cummins

I've been hearing that rumour for about 60 years. If it had been serious, human males as we know them might have ceased to exists in the space of 100,000 to 5,000,000 years (different estimates by different authors). However, the situation is not so dire: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17127617

Anyway it will be hell of a lot easier than forming a global government. If you are talking practical steps today, a global government has no chance. — PhilosophyRunner

It doesn't need forming. The UN already exists and its agencies carry out a good many functions of government much better than most current governments do in their individual territories. It's true that world powers, both formal and private, undermine its efforts whenever they see their own hegemony threatened, but that happens to every government in countries with contentious factions. They - I mean world powers, military, political, religious and financial - are the only real obstacle.
Empires must crumble before a new world order can be formed out of the crumbs. I imagine a breakdown of all federations and dominions, so that relatively equal small states may form a pact where none dominate.

Yes, but that [a better, healthier direction] 's not the debate here. — Isaac

It wasn't, until you introduced it.

The argument, apparently, was that the state of womanhood is in danger from males transitioning to female. I do not believe that to be the case.
Another argument was that, if a small percent of the population changes gender at will, society might somehow be harmed. I do not believe that to be the case.
Another argument was that heterosexual men disguised as women have penetrated women's shelters and prisons for the purpose of committing rape and other crimes. I am not personally aware of such a case, but as crimes are sometimes committed by people in disguise, I see no reason to disbelieve it. I do not, however, believe that all trans people should be penalized for that fact.

Then there is this multipronged ?argument:

I'd prefer people not be encouraged to surgically alter their bodies [1] to 'fix' a mental health problem [2] caused by societal values [3] which are themselves wrong. [4] Fixing society's unhealthy attitudes by laying the fault at the individual is itself unhealthy, [5] but doing so by giving more power to an industrial complex [6] which is already responsible for some of the greatest tragedies we've recently been through is doubly bad.[7] — Isaac

1. I am unaware that "people" are being encouraged to alter their bodies, and if so, by whom they are being encouraged.
2. This assumes that you are qualified to assess whatever problems people you have never met experience in relation to their gender identity, or that these problems are necessarily and invariably psychological. I do not believe either to be the case.
3. Such psychological problems are assumed to have a single cause: societal values,
which are
4. presumed wrong in some unspecified way.
While both these assumptions may be correct, no proof is offered.
5.I do not believe that 'society's unhealthy attitudes' can be fixed, but I do know that laws are always drafted in such a way as to hold individuals responsible for transgressing social rules and mores. Whatever a society is right or wrong about, only individuals can be punished.
6. Industrial complexes already have a good deal of power through their economic influence. I don't follow which particular industrial complex is being empowered by gender transitions, or what that complex is expected to do with its new power.
7. Unclear also is what industrial complex has been responsible for what great recent tragedies.
This argument is interesting for its sheer impenetrable complexity.

To date, I have not "promoted" gender reassignment, though I have steered several young people to social service agencies that might be able to counsel them, and helped someone research medical procedures.
As to social policy, the fascists are coming, so I would strongly encourage anyone who values their individual freedom to exercise their options while they can.

Global "one world" government will have to wait until the advent of an irreversible Technological Singularity that brings about a sustainable Post-Scarcity economy. — 180 Proof

Sounds OK... except that with the post-whatever-happens situation, you can't be at all sure of global communication, or even finding out who survived. Be interesting to watch how they manage.

So the solution as far as I am concerned, is not an even larger monopolistic thought orthodoxy, but rather more options. — PhilosophyRunner

Sounds good. Go on...

Starting with changing the electoral system to one that allows minority parties more of a say (eg proportional representation), as opposed to the two party dominant systems in many countries. — PhilosophyRunner

How do you get them to do that? Start with the US.

If someone says "I hate getting wet" but goes out in the rain without an umbrella that could be considered irrational. — Andrew4Handel

Unless they found out his reason for going out in the rain on that particular occasion. We do lots of things we hate for lots of reasons - some of them quite rational.

Others have given different reasons that I think have merit, but mine is one against there being a monopoly, even if it is a benevolent monopoly. — PhilosophyRunner

What we have now is a monopoly of unaccountable, unopposed, infinitely mobile global wealth. What external entity can critique it with authority? What external entity has the power to constrain it? What external authority can make it justify its actions - or even discover most of its actions?
The nation-states are powerless against it, but they rattle enough missiles against one another to kill the world seven times over. Ordinary people already have very few and very bad options to choose from. I think a benevolent co-operative system, however fragile and potentially prey to corruption, is preferable to the current situation.

I am of the view that monopolies corrupt, and this does also apply to government. — PhilosophyRunner

Suppose it's an arm's length administrative structure, with diversified home rule, but no standing armies? Regional representation, like a senate, only without national borders, and a constantly changing elected parliament? An international court for transgressions against sovereign rights, and an arbitration process for inter-regional and inter-national disputes.