That leapfrogs the issue I've put forward, though. Which is that there aren't many people who are reasonable on that side of this (this, of course, being a total generalization but it is based on far more than my experience personally).

The agents are masked for extremely good reason. The optics are noted, nevertheless. As I noted, Trump's policies are wild. I am not defending them. But that doesn't mean the responses is any better. "no one is illegal" and "look how violent I can be" don't work, and never have.

I've been using Gemini - it's much much better.
Yeah, but that's not quite the case, is it? It's only people in the US since a certain time. 18 years, it seems. Given that current immigration is the problem (across the last 9 years, anyway) this wont be relevant to much of the discussion.
Your point is taken.

Yes, I've misunderstood the framework.

It seems, though, if you haven't lived it 18 years, you can't get this status, no?
That's an incredibly high barrier and butters no bread for the current issues, I'd think.

Yes, sorry, that was silly wording.

My point was just to show that it is very circumscribed, and there are several limits on it. These people aren't granted the right to stay in the US based on some time spend - they must meet the criteria and continue to do so (aging out, eventually - so, there is no continuing safety in the program, it seems) while renewing actively their status every two years or so. That said, I have nothing against this - I'm just saying there is no way for a person to simply stay in the US for a certain period and be granted the right to continue staying.

I'd also posit this is a privilege, rather than right, but that could be nitpicking here.

Weinstein will now likely die in prison.

Good.

That is in pursuit of the normal process of citizenship gaining though, right? It's not going to be indefinite and it doesn't actually grant people anything but a stay.

Ah, i see what you're getting at. I guess I disagree about your concepts of man and woman. I do agree they are something to do with sex, but only as an indicator/director. I don't find any real 'connection'. Sort of like something being "red". Sometimes obvious, sometimes quite a muddled thing (yellow? orange? Salmon?). This is why I also accept "non-binary". I just find the types of people who claim that ID are already insufferably self-absorbed.

Is being the discrete, solid thing that it appears to us to be a feature of "things as they are", which we have only to note and make true statements about?

Rather, isn't it the case that our particular needs and capacities as humans allow us to perceive and group items in the world according to categories like "discrete" and "solid"? — J

1. Yes. It is a fact about the world; true without humans (is my view);
2. Yes. That does not mean they do not exist otherwise.

My point is that we don't approach the world as a collection of neutral phenomena which hold still for us as we go on to discover what is true about them. — J

I think we do. I think that is the intuition of 99+% of people and, as far as I can tell, the basis for why anything we do actually works.

We have a large role to play in constituting the phenomena we then say true things about. — J

I have been over this position a few times (in various forms - a semi-popular one in phil). I don't buy it. I don't think we have anything to do with the actual things which are out there that we are describing. We constitute our own concepts, and overlay these onto those things - thus, potentially creating daylight between the 'real world' and ourselves (i'm an anti-realist about perception, anyways just not objects). But I do not buy, and can't see any reason to think this affects the world around us, rather htan our internal (collectively internal?) world.

It means that "things as they are" should probably be reserved for a particular reductive conception of physics, and even there viewed with some doub — J

Hmmm. I can still buy this, due to the (now) bolded above. That said, I do not think anything at all is going amiss when we do this outside of those fields. It seems to be hte case - we're just inadequately clear when we want to make that distinction, i'd say.

Also, if you wanted to confine "things as they are" to terms of intersubjectivity — J

That certainly could be done.. No real issue.

No, because you've conditioned out the context in which that is a crime. Disparaging is also a little weak to reach any kind of a legal benchmark.

He certainly could. But I highly doubt anyone would entertain that argument from someone running for President. But, as I understand the law, yes, he could absolutely sue several outlets and untold individuals for defamation. Musk could do the same. But why would they?

I think it is entirely just and appropriate to remove any undocumented immigrants who aren't facing genuine crisis (i.e are at the start of their illegal tenure and can reasonably be expected to comply with some onerous process of getting citizenship) and, like Obama wanted/did, they go to the back of the line.

Trump's policies are wild(bad, immoral, unfortunate, only semi-helpful to his goal), but the point of them is absolutely spot-on. The riots are an excuse for angry, ideological people to do damage to their own communities while flying flags of countries they refuse to return to.

I haven't had a single reasonable conversation with someone who supports the riots yet. They just lie about it being peaceful and pretend it has something to do with "No one is illegal". Yes they fucking are.

I think of gender as a socially organised way to order sexual behaviour through our daily praxis. — Dawnstorm

Ahh ok, that's fair. A slightly stronger version that I would use is all. Fully makes sense of what you're saying though, thank you.

ou talk about exceptions for a rule. — Dawnstorm

Not quite - I don't think gender and sex are rule-bound. They vary almost interdependently but this is no rule - a mere observation. Does that resolve that tension?

And I think the problem is socially re-inforced complacency: it's not our problem. Unless we're trans. — Dawnstorm

I think this is entirely true, on every level. It simply isn't our problem when others gender and sex vary independently. That's fine. I'm unsure that the preceding comments apply in that light, thought I understand their purpose. I just don't think we're looking for rules (though, i assume TRAs are in order to justify enforcing their identities on others social worlds).

If there are no biological markers somewhere around sex that regulate those exceptions... how can we tell? If there are, listening to trans people and what they're paying attention to should be interesting. — Dawnstorm

I agree - and i find it entirely uninteresting to speak with trans people about this specific issue. It is a mess, and rarely comes coherent or in a to-be-taken-seriously form, I think. The only claim is that trans people have the brain of the opposite sex. I note this is untrue, and usually only trotted out to support trans women which goes directly to my fundamental scepticism in the area (not about people's ID - but about people's motivations and what that means for society).

since the combination of biological differences and living together in groups will always lead to some sort of gender distinction. — Dawnstorm

This says to me you want to conclude that gender is analogous to sex? I understand that's not what you're saying but it seems so intensely difficult to accept that there's some biological connection without equating the two. What could apply to one, and vary independently in the other?

"Adult" is usually connected with both age and behaviour. An adult can behave childishly without being a child, but an adult can "fail to grow up". — Dawnstorm

This speaks to the, what I think is, false narrative around trans stuff. The above doesn't change anything about a strict delineation between child and adult, which we have along two metrics:

1. Age of majority;
2. Having experienced puberty.

Both are objective measures of an adult. The subsequent behaviours and presentations don't alter that. Does this make sense? If so, read across to sex. If Gender has an objective standard, it would need to be to clearly assessable. Gender is not. In fact, gender can be claimed as the opposite to behaviour and presentation (as well as sex). It seems its a category unrelated to either, on the TRA version.

But being wrong about something that's in flux — Dawnstorm

This is definitely true, and is probably why "gender transition" is such a totally incoherent concept in practice. Not that there's a moral value there - just that no one can make sense of what's happening in a transition unless they refer to an objective standard which is not in flux.

If you're really trans — Dawnstorm

I think this is an unfortunate way to proceed. I want to know what that is, before assessing it in situ of another discussion (I realise you've resiled from that, and do not hold you to it - just being clear about any comments that might betray this)

The problem here is this: it's hard, and maybe (currently?) impossible to tell the difference from the outside, when all you have is what they do and say. — Dawnstorm

But surely, Gender can only be assessed on those terms, anyway? If its tied to sex, trans people don't have room to make claims they cannot support to others.

"safety issue" seems to be secondary to the general discourse around this (especially, since the safety of trans people is usually secondary for people who argue safety — Dawnstorm

I think this is backwards. The safety of trans people (in bathrooms, lets say) is secondary. They are requesting access to a protected space - being the target of the protective measure (i.e male, in this argument anyway). My wife's safety comes before males who want to piss in the same room as she (for she, and I). It is rare for people to put theoretical safety of others above themselves. It might even be a bad move to do so.

I'd not be surprised if trans people allowed into "their" bathrooms still choose to avoid public bathrooms, as these places aren't seen as safe. — Dawnstorm

It seems to be something somewhat opposite: trans people are determined to access the bathroom they claim, regardless of any safety considerations. Its an affirmation issue. In that light, it seems more likely to be an ignorance of safety on their part, in service of their identity, than much else.

Ah, i see. Fair enough - certainly an easier way to do things.

Would this be a kind of "explanations stop somewhere" type of thing? No issues with that. I just have personal interest in understanding per se lol

Instead truths become available within human discourse—not arbitrarily, not as illusions, but as intelligible articulations of a world we are always already in relation with. — Banno

I can't quite tell is this is part of hte false dilemma, for you. The above seems to me to be the case wrt truth. Things are as they are, and our existence only changes that insofar as our existence includes considerations of truth. Whether these can be 'moral' truths being another question, though, to be clear.

Forgive if this seems a bit of a leap-frog,

It seems there's no discussion of what constitutes an understanding here, and just what one could, as a third party, perceive as an output correlated with understanding. Is that right?

That seems to miss the point to me, in the sense outlined by my bringing in deceit as a spanner. You might get everything you've ever wished for in terms of your audience's behavioural outputs, but be none-the-wiser as to where they understand you.

It seems a bit pointless to me to talk about the (essentially) optics, rather than some connection between actual understanding leading to certain behavioural outputs, and our (the 3p) interpreting them. Without taking something to be understanding which would give us certain outputs, aren't we just pissing about hte place and then calling it what we want?

Yep, roughly. The idea that there is no mind in which a 'lie' can actually arise would mean that they're just wanting us to see deceit as an illusion of of a set of dispositional actions.
They still seem to think conditioning leads to the tendency to lie, though, which is a weird position to me.

Was about to come post something similar. There seems to be pretty credible discussions around Russia attacking Nato in the next half-decade. A ramp up to WWIII seems imminent, from some perspectives.

The one spanner I see is people dishonestly enacting what they know to be behaviours which would tell you they apprehend you - but they don't. That's a tricky one. Hijacking implicatures is a problem for all speech really.

Biography would be the only real factor I think could lead to an assumption of this kind.
My experience with each friend would inform me of two things:

1. The likelihood they would understand; and
2. Their behaviour in such a scenario.

It may be that A (your One) doesn't get it at all, and is simply entertained by my nerdiness. B might get it, and understand some implication that has pulled him away from the conversation.

I would look for already-known signs that someone is expressing their understanding to me.

Money based systems simply do not allow for healthy society. — Vera Mont

I suggest there's a reason you are unable to make reasonable responses to critiques. Lines like this make it obvious you are operating on bullshit personal beliefs and not doing any reasoning at all. A good example is this:

I suggested organizing society in such a way that everyone has the opportunity to participate and nobody needs charity. — Vera Mont

There is no way to read this, other than that you cannot grasp reality. Everyone does have the opportunity to participate (unless physically unable, which you or I couldn't account for anyway). Charity is required in a just society because plenty of people are unable to participate. This take ignores almost everything important about discussions around social welfare. Not surprising, but something its probably time to front up to if you want to make some sense.

If you are not yet familiar with the Venus Project, this may interest you. There are several movies, (That one was fun; your library may have it.) too, and I think, a documentary on You Tube. — Vera Mont

I missed this. The Venus Project is utterly bereft of anything realistic or moral. Jacques Fresco was an absolute asshole (I met him multiple times) who did not give a flying fuck about anything but being a Jesus character to his followers. Unfortunately, several friends saw hiim this way, sunk their lives into his project and got left in the dirt. There's a reason this project has been going on for nearly 30 years and has gone absolutely nowhere - particularly after being associated with the absolute fucking trainwreck Zeitgeist. This explains a lot about how you're viewing hte world - totally unrealistic and ignorant.

Here is the example: — Leontiskos

I reworked this, twice - to be to do with being asleep, and to do with a driver. I do want to engage over you misrepresenting a rather long, arduous conversation over the particular verison you wish to critique. My responses are my responses. I would prefer you either drop this, or engage with the full conversation rather than your chosen issues to crtique (in this case, misleadingly).

You've literally lied about the example given — Leontiskos

Nope. Not, at all. You can just go back and see that you're cherry-picking. Not my issue. I explained the relevance of being conscious to the issue, and at that stage I pulled you up on that being the difference. So, yeah, I acknowledged this and responded in my terms. Nothing wrong with that. You can be upset if you like. I cannot understand many of your responses, as I've said all along - you clearly don't understand what's being said. Yet claim you do...

ore nonsense: — Leontiskos

I require every judgment to be a judgment, and I gave my definition of judgment <here> by following the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. — Leontiskos

The link isn't a definition. Its a discussion that gives us nothing.

You said you require every choice to be a judgement. That is tautological. It means every mental act is a judgement, because it is not possible to carry out a mental act without choice to do so. You have said as much, in trying to critique my account. Either cop to that, or don't. Not my issue, again.

you have no good arguments — Leontiskos

Is this like.... an actual joke?

ou have resorted to — Leontiskos

Nope. That is entirely fucking false to the point that you have finally actually upset me. Wont respond again unless you stop being an asshole.

he’s at least a good guy. — Wayfarer

LOL. oh yep.

Seems to me there is no tension: If the candidates have been assessed on a "set of standards" which literally reflect the will of the people, there are two possible voting outcomes:

1. votes reflect the will of people in regard to those standards (expected); or
2. people vote against their own interest due to things like idol worship and single-issue blinders at voting time.

There is a third(possible) issue: Those standards and the 'will' is an illusion. People are not honest when they want to give an impression of their intentions and 'will'. This one seems to transpire in the world. People answer surveys and polls differently than they actually vote.

Perhaps this means there's a conflict. I don't think so. It just is how voting works. The Electoral college is an issue, but a different one.

I have to say, I can't quite understand what you're actually trying to say.
The concept of gender refers to behaviour and presentation. These are, obviously not 'sexed'. They vary with sex, in most cases. So to me, there's no issue with people claiming whatever gender ID they want whenever they want, along any lines they want. It has to be related to actual gender presentational norms, though (but note: norms. These are not benchmarks, or objectively assessable criteria which leads to...)

The problem, as I see it, is that no one else has to give two squirts of piss about your identity, if it isn't somehow legally understood tout court (i.e sex, ethnicity, religious affiliation etc..) and gender should not be, in any way, a legal concept. It is utterly absurd that there are laws that describe gender as a factor in anything. its so ambiguous as to be essentially unenforceable, other than to assent to screeching children complaining that the world doesn't conform to their wishes.

There's nothing wrong with lamenting the world and your place in it - thinking anyone else needs to do anything about it is a mistake, and in the West, we have (although this seems to have curtailed recently) moved towards policies which enforce some kind of collective assent to people's identities. Ridiculous, and clearly (i.e in action, right now, all around us) a totally failed project.

Sure, but there is no law against lying. — Harry Hindu

This might be unneeded, but there are plenty of laws against lying. They are just context-specific.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/three-virginia-high-school-students-seeking-10m-in-lawsuit-over-principal-s-accusation-of-racist-harassment/ar-AA1GwJLl?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=6849dd2cbebb4d53bbcda000889c872e&ei=8

An oddly on-point example that just came across my headline widget. This could do well in the Myopia of Liberalism thread too..

The example was (roughly, and I've perhaps streamlined it here) that I am in a cab, having told the driver where I'm going and to wake me up when we arrive.

There was then a question about being conscious. I do not think merely being conscious changes anything (just to cover that, quickly). I cannot remember Leon's take, but he wants to say all mental activity is judgement, from what I understand. That's fine - just not a framework I recognise either in practice, or the definitions given.

To be brutally clear: In my example, I may be woken up, get out of the car, have the cabbie drive away - and then start judging things. Relates similarly to the maps thing, but that wasn't the greatest version of the TE.

I think the way we think about sex is inherently gendered; male/female are both sex categories and gender categories, but they are sex categories in part because they were gender categories first. — Dawnstorm

This seems quite clearly wrong, unless what you mean by gender is "immature and potentially misinformed prior concepts of sex" which is what I think actually is the case. If so, then yeah. But I can't see that complicating hte current picture.
Sex is sex.
Gender is gender.
They rarely vary independently, but they do in an incredible minority of cases (exception for rule, i suggest).
I agree with Malcolm that this is not in any way complicated. The only complicating factor is people not liking things about themselves, so refusing to wear empirically accurate labels (which is fair, to some degree - but the activism behind it is pernicious, violent and often terroristic).

Abandoning the male-female binary while researching the trans-issue may be useful; that doesn't imply also abandonding the male-female binary while researching reproduction. — Dawnstorm

I can't quite disagree, but I cannot see an avenue to assent to this. Male and female are categories that are not violated. They are useful inherently. I cannot understand a discussion about "trans" that doesn't include the grounding what you're on the "other side" of. That would be sex, no? Genders aren't inherent so you can't actually be "on the other side" of anything. You're just the gender you are.

But then, that's a direct contradiction as to the theory behind being trans: it is a subversive transition from "your gender" to "your chosen gender" or some similarly opaque and unhelpful line. So here's an example of "weirdo" thinking. People can't bear being scrutinized when they run this argument - and you're a bigot for even asking about it. Irrational crap.

But the trans-issue is not primarily related to reproduction (as a gender issue). — Dawnstorm

Now, that's correct - and socially speaking, the comments i've made above this don't apply. Just be good to people. But when we have males claiming they're going to be getting pregnant, have better vaginas then women, are better women than women and all the rest - you can fuck off, quite frankly. That's delusional, dangerous and insanely misogynistic.

and inconclusive — Dawnstorm

It may be the case that you're reading bollocks (i.e your distrust is well-founded. Almost all philosophical writing on the topic, for instance, is utterly incomprehensible babble, and the science writing is out-right dishonest in most cases). Sex determination is insanely simple - sex differentiation is more complicated, and does not affect which sex an organism is. It relates to only presentational aspects of the organisms body.

middle-of-the-road researches — Dawnstorm

Hard to know - it's not possible to publish this type of thing without some ridiculous fanfare and pushback (Tuvel rears her head). There is no middle of the road, as I see it. Either you think people change sex, or you don't. The thing is that it isn't possible for humans to do so. I think you'd be better placed to read basic biology about sex determination, unrelated to this issue. It answers everything, and everyone ignores it.

without much of an gender identity — Dawnstorm

I would probably agree with this (I have a bit stronger of a gender identity, i'd say). My current lecturer would eat this up. His position is that if we were to abolish gender (insane) cis people (i hate that term, btw. Just people) would lose so much of what they are unaware constitutes their identity with the loss of words like 'man' and 'woman'. Just a side note, realy.

There are also times I got in trouble for being gender insensitive - that is not being able to see myself as a man and thus making (mostly) women uncomfortable with my presence, or something I said — Dawnstorm

My take: this is their problem. It is not for you to police yourself, unless you can ascertain a wrong. It doesn't sound like there was a wrong here, and instead, you have woman around you prone to misreading things along gender lines. Not unreasonable, but not your problem. I deal with this is largely-female spaces too, but not in mixed spaces. I do not alter my behaviour between those contexts. It seems to be informed by some misguided solidarity and empowerment concept. Can of worms.. feel free to ignore, i guess as its not on-point to the thread.

So I do think there are people who are wrong about being women — Dawnstorm

This implies there is an objective standard to being a woman/man. If "adult human female" isn't it, the entire conversation collapses in on itself. Another weirdo type line, imo. Fwiw, "adult human X" is perfectly sufficient, conceptually. I have a hard time siding with an extreme minority which can totally reasonably be characterized as mentally aberrant, on issues that, for the majority, amount to safety issues (i have provided ample evidence for this throughout the thread). Even if this breaks down into half of females being fine with transwomen among them, and half not - the half who aren't take priority imo. Inviting males into female spaces is not something that would be standard, and so requires assent of at least 50% of females on a level that covers the specific area in which is a policy is to be implemented (i.e within a specific sport club, within a specific lets say night life precinct, within a specific campus etc.. etc.. etc..). I do not think large-scale policy can address this issue unless woman means something objectively determinable(I think the UK have done the 'right' thing, regardless of a moral valence there. It is what works for policy-writing).

secondary to them being wrong about being trans. — Dawnstorm

Is it posssible you could elaborate here? I get the intuition i would agree, if I understood.

I'm unsure there's such thing as being 'wrong' about being trans, unless there's an objective metric by which a third party could make that call.

people whose minds are not even fully developed have a tendency to mis-diagnose themselves if ever given the opportunity to do so as opposed to a thorough multi-session exam by a licensed medical professional — Outlander

Medical professionals are incentivized to do this, via "moral righteousness" and potential kickbacks(which have been widely reported - Jack Turban being a ridiculously obvious shilling example).

But, yes, there is a social contagion aspect here. A psychologist friend of mine who is intensely left wing had to come to me, somewhat hat-in-hand saying "no, you were right. They are collecting diagnoses". It is literally 'cool' to be disordered, and that's been the case since I was a teen.

justify beliefs using reason, but we form them based on our affective relationships with the world. — Tom Storm

I think this is the correct framework. What to do with the words is another issue.
Explicit acceptance of X seems to be a fine way to characterize belief. I don't find much here to suggest otherwise. That said, it does seem weird not to mention the pre-and-post cognitive states as directly related to the belief, so definitely more to be said. Very interesting thread.

On the contrary, your input seems like it might be helpful in making progress. — Leontiskos

No.

I know that I could misunderstand the direction and go astray and end up lost and not at my destination. — Fire Ologist

That's not a judgment.

“Is the last step completed yet? Can I move on to the next step? Is where I am driving what is meant by this next step? Is Google still correct of should I switch to Apple Maps? — Fire Ologist

I have already conditioned these out of my example.

So I think you have done the same mis-understanding as Leon has. There is no room for judgment in my examples, unless the definition is highly irregular. I designed them that way to pick up whether Leon wanted "judgement' to mean something other than deliberation. I don't think it does. Leon seems to (but wont quite say that).

This should actually clear up any answers to Leon's last reply too.

I thought I’ve addressed most if not all of the arguments — NOS4A2

It's hard to understand this take - you have been consistently told you have not addressed them. You don't really get to claim the opposite to the people who are giving you these arguments. You've not even touched the neuroscientific basis for words causing action. It flies in the face of your entire premise (empirically) and you have failed in any wya to address why you think several extremely harmful crimes should be fully legal, due to not restricting speech.

THose are two you have not touched in any meaningful way. You may think so - you haven't. Onward...

someone’s speech, which I stated was “harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others”. — NOS4A2

Those forms of speech are crimes (currently). You are not in touch with the issue, it seems. You are wilfully not answering to these charges... Why you do think those things should be allowable? Lets hope theres more further on..

Your equivalence is utter nonsense. — NOS4A2

This is just you pretending that harmful activities can't be carried out by speech. They can, and I've presented several (which are crimes). You seem to want to ignore this to support a principled approach to something which has empirical import.

So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others.” — NOS4A2

But this is absolute bullshit, isn't it? As it seems you might have to address in your next reply... Onward.

The problem is you’re equivocating between illegal, regulated, and acceptable behavior in a dramatic display of complete casuistry. I say none of it should be criminalized so you repeat the question, moving the goalposts, to where you are now asking if they I think they should be regulated — NOS4A2

I am sorry, but this is perhaps the most awful, dishonest crap you have ever posted on this forum.
You want to - not criminalize harmful speech - but regulate it. Explain yourself, while maintaining an 'absolute' free speech position? You'll note this isn't possible.

Why ask if you can’t handle the answer? — NOS4A2

You're a child, it seems, who cannot have a conversation about their clearly contradictory views. That is not an issue for me. I am handling you with aplomb.

Your final two lines are pure irony. You aren't capable of a rational discussion, and I no longer have time for children pretending to speak to adults.

Fair enough - for full disclosure, I think this is a little underhanded but I appreciate the cordiality nonetheless :) Rare in these discussions.

@Moliere
@Leontiskos

I decided, at the time I commented, to wait for another opportunity. It's all good :) I fucked up and missed out on submitting.

Totally fair. Fwiw, by 'weirdos' I mean people who willingly try to convince others to enjoy their cognitive dissonance and accept clearly contradictory positions (either this, or people who do not think there are reasonable structures to be found in the world whcih we can describe. I find both weird and unhelpful. I avoid both kinds of people whenever I can).

To be even clearer: Most right-wing activists are 'weirdos', as are most TRAs.

No, it isn't. So, I wont expand on that.

The universe is expanding exponentially. You're welcome.

But that simply kicks the can back into a situation we were already in. Without sufficiently defining Sex, there is no disambiguation (but, in reality, we all know the difference, so this is just window dressing and convincing people like Michael to stop fucking around).

There are males and females, based on SRY activation and this is the earliest, most obvious determinant. It is also what is taught to biologists as best I can tell. Other forms of 'sex' are specified where 'the sex of the organism' is an absolute categorical 1 or 0. This also applies to all 'intersex' individuals.

This means that everything in those responses makes sense, and isn't unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to simply defer to 'grey area' instead of figuring out the best uses of words for our purposes. So, disambiguating gender has been done extremely well, by almost everyone but weirdos.
Defining sex is actually just as simple. As is determination. There's no ambiguity, if you use the fundamental, non-ambiguous "classification". The only other one which would make sense is whether or not the organism produces gametes (and which ones) but we see hte flaws there, i assume.

Missed the cut off, but i've got 2800/3000 words down.

Is there another one for later in the year?

If "objective racism" means "espouses/acts on consciously held racist views," then I might estimate this to be true of 50% of US people. — J

That is honestly, in my view, utterly bananas my guy. This makes me think perhaps you have never left your house. Obviously not, but having been around the States and understand how to look at sample sizing etc... this claim is one for which I would want to prevent you from holding office its so absurd. This purely to illustrate how flabbergastingly made-up this appears to someone looking in.

But systemic racism is where the "racist assumptions" really play out, and here it would be difficult to find anyone, myself included, who is immune. — J

Is this one of those "everyone's racist" arguments? Cause if so, this isn't even worthy of discussion. If everyone has it, why are we talking about it like its a bad thing? Its human nature if so.
If that's not the argument, I would suggest you're reading 'lines' and just eating them up. Its hard to even understand what's being brought forward in those sorts of tests. "implicit bias" means almost nothing. Humans discriminate. That's about 99% of our mental activity. There's also a bit of a bugaboo here: Racism against the majority is rife. I do actually care whether that ruffles feathers - it is. Karmelo Anthony is a PERFECT example of some rather extreme black privilege (until he was charged, I should add. It looks to have stopped).

But more generally, the US is constantly finding surrogates for explicitly racist policies, most recently the moves against immigrants. — J

That may be your view, and why you think 50% of the US is racist. I think its utterly preposterous. There is an argument here, though, that I think gets ignored: Non-racist policies carried out by racist people give a certain flavour. I'll say no more than to add that there are plenty of explicitly racist policies: they aren't aimed at black and brown people.

The racist assumption here would be that, somehow or other, there is a racially neutral explanation of this. — J

Your position is that a racially neutral explanation for any racial disparity would be, fundamentally, racist? Are you hearing yourself? Or am I not getting it?

Whichever answer, this doesn't apply to the actual commission of violent crime. What's the 'racist' explanation there? Particularly given its mainly intra-racial?

Why would this disclosure automatically lead to civil war? — schopenhauer1

I said likely. I am open to you re-stating your question.

For example, the Cold War has ended, the public may be more accepting, and there has already been a slow rollout of disclosure over time. — schopenhauer1

This last part flies in the face of the example and what was asked. Well done.

My comment is reasons for the "No". Quite hard to know what you want here, particularly given the mischaracterizations.

Nowhere in that definition is the claim that every mental act counts as a judgment. I noted that you are free to offer a different definition of judgment. — Leontiskos

This absolutely ignores what I've said. You haven't addressed it. I can wait, but its also not entirely needed - your definitions are your definitions. They don't matter much to the discussion. I made a point about your definition which has been glossed over. That's fine. But not my problem.

I think we're circling back to this and the conversation that followe — Leontiskos

I'm going to ignore this section - it is absolutely pointless. I told you my view was otherwise, and explained something from that view point. We disagree about there being a judgement at that precise moment. This is not interesting.

How did you recognize that if not by judging that the Google Maps voice told you that you arrived? — Leontiskos

By recognizing it and making no judgement. If all that happened was a green light lit up on a HUD, all i've done is seen something and exited the car. You'll not get me to say this is a judgement. This is what I wanted to avoid - I thikn your definition sucks, you probably think so about mine.

Do you have an alternative definition? — Leontiskos

I gave you several. I also gave my own. This particular response of yours is uncharacteristically ignorant and uninteresting.

In the Google Maps scenario you must judge that you have arrived — Leontiskos

Nope. We've had that game. Moving on..

you should wake up — Leontiskos

This isn't in any way relevant to judging to go under the knife, which was in question. No sure where this came from. Uncharacteristic.

But both are judgments given the definition I have provided. — Leontiskos

Yep. Its a shit definition, in my view, and I proceeded on that basis. I've been explicitly clear and you're running over dead horses ad infinitum.

When philosophers talk about judgment this is what they are talking about. — Leontiskos

You really, truly need to re-read everything I've said because this aint it chief.

It seems like you are saying that you might get in a crash and regret the crash, and then when someone asks you why you got in a crash, you could reasonably answer, "Oh, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to crash when driving. I make no attempts to avoiding crashing." That seems patently unreasonable, no? — Leontiskos

I do not have the patience to correct this utterly insane take.

It seems pretty straightforward that when carrying out instructions one is engaged in judgments, even if they are subordinated to a proximate end and infused with an intention of trust. — Leontiskos

Ok. Disagreed.

It's logical that improvement is only possible where something is not good enough. — Quk

It's not. The females made wild assumptions (based on what we've been told above). The males did not - if anything, there seems a bit of pronoia going on in the males, but it seems more likely that is what the speakers tone intimated. I also notice the same disparity when speaking with colleagues/subordinates.

For my own tastes it's because of principle. — NOS4A2

I have read the entire response and will make further comments. But I am telling you mate, this is the only reasonable answer you have given. That's fine, but it does absolutely nothing for the arguments you've been presented with, regardless of you either not getting htem, or pretending they aren't there.

I do not think any person nor group of people should have the power to pick and choose what the rest of us can say, write, and think — NOS4A2

Not entirely unreasonable, but doesn't quite get to what I asked you. My assumption (which was founded) being you'll get deeper as you go...

So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others. — NOS4A2

This is equivalent to saying "Preventing crime is violating people's rights to eat fresh Apples from the corner near my house". Utterly preposterous and non sequitur. There is absolutely no connection between criminalizing speech and the (obviously nonsensical, in context) "sacrifice" or "another's" right to "live and survive with others". These are non-arguments.

But worse, the reason's stated as to why a censor might criminalize speech are entirely superstitious. In fact I would argue that the censor's superstitions are the most prevalent, ancient, and at the same time, most disastrous of superstitions of the entirety of human existence. — NOS4A2

You've made this claim. It is ridiculous, on it's face, and empirically unsupportable. You've done nothing to support it, or massage it into appearing more reasonable. There is no argument to contend with here.

They must be figurative because they cannot explain how it actually occurs — NOS4A2

We've already done this for you within this thread. If you do not understand defamation and its follow-ons, you need to just bow the heck out of this before you're left at the gates of an actual conversation.

that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols — NOS4A2

They literally do. I've explained this in hte response you have quoted from me. Granted I didn't ask you to address that - you have gone and done so, further showing that you:

A. Do no understand the position you're arguing against;
B. You do not understand hte physics of speech and hearing;
C. You do not understand your own point of view adequately to defend it (plenty can. you're floundering).

I would suggest you have a deep, hard, logical think about what you're doing here. We can all see hte problem here. It's not one of opinion. You have no arguments. You have failures of understanding (or, complete lack of knowledge about a relevant field).

So in my view, to choose to censor is to tacitly believe in superstition and sorcery. — NOS4A2

You may want to turn this around - your positions are so abjectly stupid and ignorant of that which you pretend to rail against that you aren't off the ground yet. Sorcery would be required for your positions to obtain, particularly because you are yelling at a ghost (it seems other commenters have already pointed this out to you).

Far better to let the chips fall as they may. — NOS4A2

You have entirely refused to address the issues I put to you.

Tell me why defamation is acceptable? Repudiating contract? Misleading commercial dealings? Politicians lying about their policies? Police lying on their reports? Judges lying about evidence in their command? Perjury? Trademark violations? You truly think these should not be regulated?
If so, you want communism. Plain and simple.

It’s magical thinking to believe I cause you to respond. — NOS4A2

This is so fundamentally wrong, It is extremely hard to know how to approach this to get you off such a hollow point.

If we couldn't respond to you, that would be true. We can, therefore, your speech causes a response. "If but for" your comment, there would be no response. These aren't legal arguments, to be sure - that's something quite different - but all the legal arguments fall under these heads and are discussed at some fair length.

Your point is we chose to respond. Okay. In most cases, yes, that'll be true. But even reading words can literally cause irresistible chemical urges in the brain and these are known mental conditions. They are simply normal mechanisms gone awry. Because speech can cause action. I have provided several sources and we have, collectively, explained this to you plenty of times.

At this stage, your ignorance can be your own. You have failed to make an argument.