Yes, and you really can't overestimate the degree to which the US is plagued by racist and classist assumptions. — J

It seems patently obvious that you can, and that this is the standard driven by media/social media. The vast majority of the US is objectively not racist. Classist? A better argument can be made.

Verbal violence, no destruction. — Lionino

This is nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. What do you think "verbal violence" consists in?

The director Nicholas Winding Refn has made a career trying to use violence as part of his art. But I'm still thinking violence itself just becomes the means to tell something, rather than embodying the art itself. Violence itself becomes an aesthetic, a paint stroke of craft rather than the artwork itself. You cannot have violence as art, but violence is a part of the paintbrush just like love or compassion is not art, but part of the paintbrush. — Christoffer

Bang on, imo.

I have APSD, or psychopathy — Wolfy48

Thank you for the honesty. This does explain a fair bit. I was sociopathic for several years due to trauma, so I may have reasonable responses to such a view. Let's see...

Essentially, economic freedom up to a certain point where the government has to step in to check an individual's power. — Wolfy48

I think this is a grand vision, but It's not practical. I presume (though, my detailed knowledge of economic history is scanty at best) this has been tried on several occasions. I would need to do research I have no interest in to back this up though..

making it possible but normally not worth it to go over the limit — Wolfy48

My take is this would simply incentivize lying and corruption. I do think that's roughly capitalisms largest problem, currently (there are ceilings, even currently, to greed-driven gains - particularly if you're outside government).

The geographical regions will be assigned a council made up of 2 branches. — Wolfy48

I like this concept but runs the same risks as above. Sheep in wolves clothes.

I mean to say that the government should make slander or criticizing the government openly and publicly illegal. — Wolfy48

This seems antithetical to everyone we would want to avoid - that lack of criticism would mean there is no recourse or reflexive mechanism. I understand the point of such a restriction, but the government requires criticism from without to remain functional. If you mean to restrict this type of criticism to academic work, that's another thing - which I would still reject, but have far less issue with.

but it is not recommended as that will severely drop public opinion and support for the government. — Wolfy48

This may be one of the reasons why - your proposed structure bakes-in the ability to make these criticisms. Secret, private rejection of the government would be ridiculous without any ability to publicly state it and find out how many people agree.

You don't need a good reason to go to war with a Nation, you just need to decide whether or not you want to. — Wolfy48

I actually agree with this one. I just cannot imagine anything but invasion that would support such a 'want'. Particularly given you'll need to convinced the military.

What the government can't see, the government can't prepare for or stop in time. — Wolfy48

They also can't interfere, usurp or retain. These are finely balanced, because your point isn't lost. But I think it clearly the case that my point outweighs yours.

One way to assuage the concerns is to use AI to monitor homes and bathrooms (and everything else), and only bring the recordings to human eyes if it flags something dangerous — Wolfy48

That wouldn't solve it until we have self-generating, independently intelligent AI which does not require human input. At that point, you're fucked anyway so a bit redundant.

Your legislation section is insufficiently clear or specific for me to say a lot. I would say the basic premise of "big tings, top shelf, small things, lower shelf/ves" is a good one. Roughly, that's what happens. I just take it you want less on the top shelf. Fair.

I recommend a system where repeat offenders are exiled or executed, while 1 or 2-time offenders will be allowed to stay. — Wolfy48

Offenders against what laws? Murder? Child rape? Ok. I'd still sit short of execution, but okay. Petty theft? Can't quite see where you're going on that one...

As for punishments themselves, that is again up to the discretion of the ruling government. — Wolfy48

The punishment will be decided by the jury — Wolfy48

I thnk its possible you need to think a bit longer about most of these ideas. Maybe run some of this through an AI looking for contradictions or logical inconsistency.

Volunteer militaries tend to have higher morale and better fighting spirit, so I recommend not drafting anyone unless your state is in terminal danger or you're completely failing the propaganda game. — Wolfy48

This is very good. I think the precursors impractical though.

so there is no reason for not letting someone in — Wolfy48

There's a little too much to unpack here, but this is plainly, obviously, patently, comically untrue. Your internal security cannot deal with a dishonest actor prima facie. Inviting corruption isn't a good idea, which this system would do. It would also attract the unproductive and culturally isolated. Not good for cohesion or productivity.

sometimes it is necessary to source resources from another power. — Wolfy48

Sometimes is key. This means your conclusions aren't following your reasoning. I'll say no more, but that I disagree with this entire section.

Basic life needs, such as water, shelter, food, electricity, and healthcare should be subsidized by the state, though it should be the bare minimum, as to keep the poorer folk healthy while also being uncomfortable, driving them to work harder and gain more benefits and comfort. — Wolfy48

This seems the case in semi-socialized nations like the Commonwealth nations. It seems to work, but there is definitely a issue with the bolded - this does not seem to motivate people to do better. On it's face, I intuitively really like this position, though. I do not think your assumptions follow from your premises though - I don't think this will cause people to work for more comfort. People just get comfortable with less.

The government will not pay an individual to not work, — Wolfy48

For the old, you are paying them a stipend for having worked for, say, 50 years.

The first option is to find someone else who is capable of contributing to help them, most likely family, friends, or charity. The second option is to kick them out of the country. — Wolfy48

I think this is incredibly naiive. The first puts a burden on the society which, on your conception, seems would render it dysfunctional. It would disincentivize anyone around the disabled to do anything but care for their loved ones who cannot be productive - therefore, further reducing productivity. The second option - you're right, it's immoral. But there's also a question of how you could enforce that, if not an island nation. However, if we're talking about babies I have slightly more sympathy. I still couldn't condone it.

a stable and infallible government — Wolfy48

I think you have failed to outline this, by quite some margin to put it mildly.

My goal would be to equalize and unite all of the cultures of the world — Wolfy48

Why?

I would seek to eliminate them — Wolfy48

I think you would run hard, face first, into reality. Gender roles, for instance, are inherent. They are not something we 'made up'. They are malleable, to be sure, but they are not reducible to 'ideas' we can just change.

the harsh hand of nature, which I seek to remove from humanities affairs — Wolfy48

This may be the delusional aspect leading to some of the earlier issues. This is not possible. We are natural, and that is the only environment we can access.

I have no qualms about using lies or propaganda to influence the masses, just as I have no qualms about killing a few to ensure the good of the whole — Wolfy48

Then you have doomed yourself to be ousted by revolution. So be it.

I will not — Wolfy48

The chances of this are closer to zero than one.

antagonistic to my goals, I will allow things I do not agree with, so long as they do not hinderhumanity's growth — Wolfy48

Contradictory.

It is designed to be a flexible, unbreakable, strong government that can enforce any ideals — Wolfy48

Why? What makes this even a fundamentally good thing to pursue, in the absence of those other goals?

I believe that there are not many — Wolfy48

There are massive, massive flaws in this system at every level I can grok. And I'm pretty shit at this type of analysis. I do think a lot of it is that you've gotten ahead of yourself, and not compared section A to section X to check for consistency. The other issue is your incredibly sanguine assumptions about human behaviour - I think you are referring to automatons in your system - if not, you have not account for 90% of what will matter: humans behaving like humans.

it's sole purpose is to convey my ideas in the simplest way possible — Wolfy48

You have done this well.

They simply need to be true. — Wolfy48

This is not something open to type of the things you are saying, so I don't think you could get off the ground. I also think it is somewhat incoherent. Take that as you will.

Still, at the end of your journey you still have to judge that the app or cab driver is telling you that you have arrived (even though you are trusting them at the same time) — Leontiskos

This flows back to whether or not you require every mental action to be a judgement. I do not - so, on my view this is a recognition only. I have simply taken what I've been told "We're here!" and run with it. I've not assessed it in any way (other than to pick up which words were aimed at me... is that hte judgement you mean? That's what Im calling recognition, to be clear).

A case where no subordinated judgment occurs would be when you go under general anesthesia for surgery, simply trusting that you will wake up on the other side. — Leontiskos

This is analogous: I judged my condition, the surgeon and medical advice, and the prognosis to go under the knife (or, anaethesia as you note). In the former, I could literally be unconscious, and be schluffed out of the car, and I'd still be wherever I actually was, regardless of whether it was 'correct'. Is it just that I am conscious you're wanting to hang something on, in that example?

If we want watertight reasoning then we must abandon vague definitions. — Leontiskos

I don't quite think this is available to us, so I'm happy with that. Although, I think the problem is actually that people have different ideas of what's captured by the concept (even on the definitions given by x or y source).

generally always trying not to crash when you are driving somewhere. — Leontiskos

Correct. But I've designed a scenario where I am not engaged in the prior activity, in terms of judgement. I can judge that hte crash fucking sucked, but I made no attempts to divert, or incur a crash.

That the computer is causally influencing you to look at it, to read, to type, to understand what you’re typing? — NOS4A2

Not necessarily the computer, but yes. The external world triggers processes within the body (given adequate proximity). One example, Michael is explaining (hearing). But this 'effect' extends to behaviour, rather than simply apprehending a noise, as such. Noises cause things in our brains to happen. Speech is a noise. I do not seen it as different to any other noises, in respect of its potential effect. Granted, I understand that this is hard to grok because not only is it intangible, even where it can be demonstrated it's somewhat esoteric, but is simply is the case given human biology and psychology.

In any case, I am more interested in your defense of not making things like contractual lies, slander/defamation, trademark violation, perjury etc... illegal rather than 'private speech' as it were (bad wording, but hopefully says what I want). Is there something for you to say here? Why would we want to allow the chips to fall where they may in these areas?

Hmm. I think some of the responses sort of miss the point I'm getting from this TE.

if these things are the case (person on the trolley track, brain in vat etc...) the reason doesn't seem to matter to the question at hand. The teletransporter is a great example. The context is irrelevant - is it you on the other side?

The trolley problem - the person is innocent. We know they are. Would you kill them to save five? That's all it asks.

In the present thread, we have sufficient information to answer the specific question, I think. The 'powers that be' are as-described. So I can attempt an answer without what I see as prevarication in much of the above responses: No, an all-at-once revelation would be disastrous. The fear, loss of frame and cosmic uncertainty would likely lead to intra-human civil wars along lines like "That's our God" or "You caused this" and what not..

That said, It seems to fly in the face of the reasons given for the initial preclusion. So, I think its incoherent that this would happen anyway. They wanted to avoid ontological shock... why would that suddenly not be the case?

Get rid of all religion, I guarantee you, harm by humans skyrockets. — Fire Ologist

Immediately? Yep. That's an utterly ridiculous response though. And you know it.

further social engineering is required. — substantivalism

required? That's .... not a good position.

most bodies want gay and black people to be classified as biologically, or at least socially or morally, atypical not to mention inferior — T Clark

This seems patently untrue... Struck me as fully bizarre and almost made-up.

Otherwise, I agree with that comment entirely.

Might have been simpler if folk just butted out of other people's business, don't you think? — Banno

They don't. So we don't. Quite literally, in a physical sense. That, perhaps, you've not seen or experienced this is no argument.

This thread is no longer interesting.

Edit: Ah, just saw that substativisms thread was merged here. I'll take another look.

One difference is that human computation involves judgment whereas machine computation does not. — Leontiskos

Yes, nice. So far, so good.

But I think the act of recognition involves judgment too. "This is 22nd street," or, "This is not 22nd street," are both acts of recognition and also judgments. — Leontiskos

In this case, it seems one of my later comments will come in handy.. Let's see...

Good, and this is perhaps one of the more foundational places where we may be disagreeing — Leontiskos

b-b-b-b-bingo. Nice. Always good to find the niggle.

In either case it would seem that you must decide whether you have arrived at the destination, no? — Leontiskos

No. I decided to trust the app. It tells me - I obey the relayed information. Note that I could be in Guam. But i judged the app to get me to wherever you live.

To decide to obey (Google Maps) is a judgment. — Leontiskos

Yep, as above. That I have arrived is no longer up to me. I don't have the ability to judge it otherwise on the assumption I will hold to the jdugement about Google maps.

I think auditory directions involve judgment just as visual directions involve judgment. — Leontiskos

Yes, I can see why too. But I think jdugement should be a little more circumscribed to capture how it is used.

To decide when to turn your steering wheel with your eyes closed in relation to the instructions you are hearing is a judgment — Leontiskos

Nah, that's input-> output in this scenario. If I crash, I crash.

You are uncharacteristically missing the point in a way that feels like it must be on purpose:

Religious fervour is the chief cause of global harm.
Humans carry out the religious fevour.

Thus, removing the religious fervour reduces the harm for which humans are culpable. It's irrelevant because "Not all men, but always men" is a totally reasonable refrain. Not all religions/religious people - but always fucking religion.

As if those previous class based reasons didn't still matter as to the judgement in enacting whatever we were going to do policy wise. — substantivalism

From what I can glean here, I would say that those reasons can't be instantiated in law. They are social conditions. The entire point of policy is to be as neutral as possible. Whether you're in poverty or not, don't fucking kill people.

Then sky is the limit then. — substantivalism

Not sure what you're getting at - but yeah, policies should do their best to reduce harm to zero as balanced against rights to Freedom (which is an entirely different discussion. These are just formal observations, not details).

Then we should be fine to state it loud and proud no skirting around it. Agreed. — substantivalism

I still, as I intimated by asking for clarification, don't know what you're getting at or whether this is sarcastic even.

Yes, except — substantivalism

There is no 'except' in that further comment. I agree, it's something that needs discussing (and is regularly discussed ad infinitum (good!)). But the policies around bathrooms and policies around in-home reduction of harm do not meet. The public sphere is a totally different beast, policy-wise and day-to-day interaction-wise (lmao... fuck that phrase).

I can't quite grasp the overall nature of hte rest of your post. I'll try make some comments..

That leaves stronger segregation practices, exclusive spaces, and social outreach. — substantivalism

Stronger than...? They have been strict across most of history. Only recently has that back-slid to a point we may need to implement more. It's the over-relaxing of those segregative policies that has caused the issues. Harm abounds - but those relaxations have increased as against "traditional" policy (notice that this doesn't touch the in-home abuse which is obviously rife. It's a different beast).

The more its left alone to its own devices the more such and such statistics remain as they were. — substantivalism

That doesn't seem true, but I have not a lot else to add.

Personally I wouldn't ever commit myself to such 'strong-handed' approaches — substantivalism

Let me in on a couple-a things:

1. What, in your own words, is the exact problem that is in question?; and
2. What, in your own words, is the exact solution to it? (this one i realise probably wont be exact - I just want to avoid prevarication).

There are lots of traditional religious groups (not open to updating) which nevertheless do not engage in the sorts of things you pointed to. — Leontiskos

The majority do. And in any case, they are the ones we are worried about - and so condemn. That some people can wield a knife while in a schizophrenic rage and not try to murder anyone doesn't mean we shouldn't be on guard for schizophrenics with knives in a rage.

the West's compassionate attitude towards out-groups comes precisely from Judaism and Christianity. — Leontiskos

This is wholly irrelevant. Religion/religious fervour is the chief source of global harm.

I think when the restriction is "the ones unopen to update" its not a tough one. But in any case, its a formal claim, not an empirical one.
Beliefs, more than other forms of cognition, drive behaviour. If your beliefs are religiously-derived, they are, without some rather spectacular intercession, inarguable. That isn't a safe situation when most religions instill beliefs about out-groups.

They do have consequences. What you choose to do and not to do. — substantivalism

Your thread/questions are about policy.

The question is one of how much percentage in inter-group conflict are you willing to stomach before you go in and manually separate them out. — substantivalism

Zero, if deaths or grievous harm are involved (or, more properly 1 - instance, per-cent, whatever you like. 1 is enough).

Whether we enforce it vocally and explicitly? — substantivalism

Plenty of groups do this. Can you clarify the question?

In fact, getting rid of them would seem more amenable besides just adding new exclusive woman's spaces. — substantivalism

Fwiw, my solution is "neutral" and "female". Sounds like it's not far off something you'd be ok with?

Those are merely the ones nationally reported. — substantivalism

This response makes my point with much more vigour than I put into it. Was that the intent?

It was. Your response tells us all we need. All good.

. . . and? Are we supposed to ignore the decrease in certain social roles with complete ambivalence? — substantivalism

I'm not entirely sure what the question is - what decrease are you talking about? In any case, 'roles' are not what policy aims to talk about. The 'roles' we play are identities and generally not subject to policy. The harms that might result tend to be. Which doesn't butter much bread for you, I can see, but it at least separates the two questions about "what's happening with identity and gender roles" and then what's going on with sex, and how this does not change.

if they are inherently unequal and distinct what exactly is meant to motivate us to have laws/policies/social policing that is intended to be neutral on those aspects? — substantivalism

.......please, PLEASE do not be this obtuse. The harm. The fucking HARM from the inequity.

I took that to be a bit of hyperbole, but in many cases, yes. The point of hte murder is to pay homage to the prophet as he commanded spread of the word by the sword - so not a sacrifice in Greek terms, still a sacrifice nonetheless. In any case, that it is a 'sacrifice' doesn't seem all that relevant. These are violent crimes/murders/rapes stemming from religious doctrine.
October 7 rears its head...

o strranger in the midst of an Abrahamic community need worry about their kinfolk being burned to the gods — Hanover

No stranger? That is clearly untrue: https://www.barnabasaid.org/nz/news/at-least-89-christians-killed-by-islamists-in-north-eastern-d-r-congo/
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/nigeria-s-silent-slaughter-62-000-christians-murdered-since-2000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_the_Islamic_State
https://www.assistnews.net/hundreds-of-churches-burned-in-europe/

It is the religion that causes the situation. It's not ancillary to it. Even in Western countries it seems we'd want to be cautious. In the UK, it appears the majority of violent crime is carried out by Muslim populations (though, finding direct statistics is hard because search engines prefer to show hate crimes against Muslims despite the disparity.

Religious doesn't make one bad, but it makes one do bad, by most lights. At least, the ones unopen to update.

Yes, barely. Not in a way that I am even sure she would recognise me now.

Though, I have interacted with her plenty over the internet (well, prior to about June 2023) and she might recognise my profiles in that capacity but I doubt it.

Yes, I know Helen (personally, in a very vague way).
Yeah, i get the point too but I'm unsure what else you could say besides "trans-identified male" which seems cumbersome, if not kind of a dick move.

that it is a prime influence on Islam; Absolute Submission. — Banno

It is. And explicitly so.

This seems muddled and not asking anything in particular??

Politics didn't need to address this issue until the last five years or so. And it has been relatively clear that most bodies want "male" and "female" to be defined classes with a range of attributes that are biologically typical. So far, so simple.

Why might this matter? Sports, healthcare, legal protections incl. relationship imbalance, workplace harrassment, privacy laws, certain crimes are sex-specific and much else besides. Much of society is informed, fundamentally, by the sex engaging in a given activity. This is basis for most political theorizing around resource, power and social justice. Males and females are different. How do we account for, and equivocate that?

That is a clear answer. Have I missed something in the question?

I think, more than most cases, I'm OK to ask what your motivation for asking is?

Three reasons:

1. super loaded;
2. I've not said I don't/wouldn't;
3. I have said that in at least half of any given instances, it is socially incumbent to do so.

ou responded: — Leontiskos

To the fictional quotation. In that context that is the right way to think about a moral judgement. I am unsure that you could say i've agreed to the moral judgement being made. No, I don't mean on the facts - I mean, i would not take it as given that the conception in that quote is a moral judgement. In the event, I do think it is - so, I've probably just been unnecessarily confusing in this part of the exchange. To be clear: I think that is the right way to think about moral judgement in the context of dismissal - I am unsure a moral judgement is occurring in the quote.

Yes, I think computation involves judgment. If I give you a math problem you will require judgment in order to solve it. — Leontiskos

That would include machines 'judging'. That does not currently seem at all open to us.

Whether rubric or schedule, I think both involve judgments. It's just that they involve simple or relatively easy judgments. — Leontiskos

I would not want to say that recognition alone (which a schedule requires, and naught else) is judgement. Perhaps I need a better 'version' of 'judgement' to support this. But it seems to be pretty obviously the case that machines do not judge in the way we want to say humans do (or, higher animals in general). It may be that an adequate definition of judgement has to include literally ever act (given every act is a version of "this/that".

For example, the judgment of whether this street is 22nd street. — Leontiskos

No, that's not up to me. Either when i get there there's a 1:1 match between you directions and my location, or there is not. I do not judge whether that is the case - it either is or isn't and I observe which it is. However, that analogy doesn't hold with my point - if you gave me an active, working Google Maps. I closed my eyes, followed the directions(pretend for a moment this wouldn't be practically disastrous lmao) and then the Maps tells me i've arrived - that's what I'm talking about. I am literally not involved in any deliberation - I am, in fact, still taking instruction. It would have been a judgement whether to actually engage this course of action, though, to be sure.

Just so. :)

I think those were at different times? I think he was also under the impression some other commenters gave evidence - but I had put paid to. I'm unsure I see an issue there... I often contradict myself pre- and post-information assimilation :) But yeah, contradiction isn't good without expressing the mental change that's occurred. Maybe he can do so...

Are you suggesting there's something untoward about adjusting one's view in light of discussion or evidence? It seems that way, so if something else is in question please be clearer...

We are judging an action or behavior, and we agreed that such a judgment is a moral judgment — Leontiskos

No we haven't. Your quoted exchange (assuming I agreed) doesn't show this. It shows that a "moral dismissal" results from a "moral judgement". That moral judgement is not assessed.

Then give your definition of 'judgment.' It seems to me that looking at the rubric and determining which answer is correct will require a judgment, namely judging which answer is correct — Leontiskos

Then computation is judgement. I reject this. Deliberation is judgement (assuming it results in something). Marking the exam without a set rubric (i.e I must know hte answers and judge whether student has gotten it right) would be this.

it seems ad hoc to exclude the judgment of the comedian from being a moral judgment — Leontiskos

This could be right, ubt I'd have to review the discussion and I'm not in place to do so right now. I cannot remember exactly what I excluded there.

If you need a 10-foot pipe and you examine two possible candidates, you are inevitably involved in judgments, no? — Leontiskos

Perhaps I should have used the term 'schedule'. An actual, written schedule of right responses.

the majority of scientists state that there are more than two sexes — Wolfy48

No they fucking don't. There has never been a single sex other than male and female suggested. Even by activists.

And how does banning trans people from bathrooms accomplish preventing sexual assault? — Wolfy48

the prohibition is justified to reduce risk — AmadeusD

It seems you cannot read. I'm out.

omfg, I just responded to every point and it looks like the post has entirely disappeared. I apologise for that.

And yet you use the fact that men are on average more likely to commit a sexual crime, even though it is a very small part of the population that does so, to justify how NO ONE born male can be trusted in a women's bathroom. — Wolfy48

No. This is an incredibly straw man.

I would add, though, that it is not as small-a-portion of the population as you seem to want it to be. That isn't the point. When it's always males, the prohibition is justified to reduce risk. We cannot, post-hoc, prevent harm.

I have read through your source, and no where does it say that trans women are 4 times more likely to commit a sexual crime than a cis man — Wolfy48

You can look at the discussion given. And it does - you may want to actually look at the statistics. Compare them with control groups (the general population). 0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women.

Aside from the incorrect ambiguity in the opening, yes, 100%. But that doesn't say anything about policy. What 'society thinks' amounts to convention. Policy is a bit different, so best prize those apart.

No one dodged it. You are ignoring all the evidence, including neurological evidence, that was put in front of you. Don't be surprised if you're ignored.

Outlander makes a reasonable retort, but it wouldn't have been mine.

As for the challenge, it is case by case, as several references on that page attest. Particularly [7], [8], and [9].

Another telling line, which could apply to definitions I am not using: "There have been no reported cases of both gonads being functional in the same person, the functional tissue is usually the ovarian tissue.[10]"

If they have active SRY, they are male. IN a female, there is no SRY active in/on any cells. That some cells do not express this in males is a genetic aberration occurring during differentiation. This is spelled out clearly on Wiki page, and is what I have repeated perhaps eight or nine times now. I cannot see this as more than you ignoring the point, if you continually bring up the same point which has been addressed several times. No offense meant, but I will ignore this same argument going forward. If you disagree with my responses, that's fine - but you're arguing as if I haven't put a nice lid on it, from my side of things. We may simply want to use different benchmarks to define "male" and "female" - the issue for me, is your use is ambiguous, unhelpful and essentially useless. As I'd like to use them, they are definite and always applicable.

If you wish to say such baseless and horrible things, please cite a source or actually read what you're quoting — Wolfy48

I have provided full statistics and a discussion on them earlier in this thread. You can look back if you want to. Perhaps have a look at previous pages before jumping in like this :) It is also good practice to do a bit more of a look that at the things you already take to be the case.

But saying that all males, or even most males, harm females is just blatantly sexist and wrong. — Wolfy48

If you could point out where this was even vague intimated, that would be helpful. But misreadings of this kind will not be addressed for very long. To be incredibly clear: I am 100% a "not all men" person. But it is, almost always, males. That's the point - not that all males are abusers. Try not to take it personally.

I said males harm females. They do. It is the overwhelming direction of harm among humans. The only comparable set is females-> children and it pales in that comparison.

I think the issue with women's bathrooms is that they are supposed to be for all women — Wolfy48

/

No, they are (and have always been) for females. The change occurred when 'woman' no longer referred exclusively to females. That's fine, but the point stands in terms of sorting out why there's such a furor over it.

Sexual assault is not a valid concern for this, as if someone is already so messed up as to commit sexual assault against an innocent, why would saying "you can't go in here" stop them? — Wolfy48

Speculative bollocks. Plenty of examples of trans people assaulting women in bathrooms (i've provided plenty in the thread, and I've not done anything close to an exhaustive look at that issue - just enough to understand it is an issue). But this also applies to changing rooms where females have the right to not be seen in the nick by males. This has nothing to do with 'risk'. It is their right. It has been since civilised society has been self-reflective in any real way. Rape crisis shelters are another extremely good example. Things like this prove there is an issue. This is sexual assault. Willing to throw even a single female under the bus for the feelings of males who are (in at least some sense disconnected from reality is not something I would morally entertain, personally. Given we have evidence of far more than one female suffering in this way, I'm good.

I would like to see a source on this. — Wolfy48

Also provided earlier. Here you go. Note specifically the opening lines, and the references therein. You may need to find htose other articles, so I apologise for that.

I would argue... — Wolfy48

argument is understood, but is wrong. Having a penis isn't hte benchmark. And it is totally reasonable to take genetic markers as indicative of typical behaviour. We do this for all animals. It gets overdone, for sure, and eventually is plain bigotry so point is taken, nonetheless.

Choosing to comport and express yourself as a woman is what makes you a woman. — Wolfy48

This is, sorry to say, complete nonsense. What are you comporting or expressing yourself as?
"a woman"
What is "a woman"?
Someone who chooses to comport and express themselves as a woman.

Absolute nonsense.

It is being used to show that even using a purely scientific definition (which to many, is wrong), the two-gender mindset isn't accurate. — Wolfy48

But that is factually wrong. This has been gone over. If you don't take a scientific definition of sex seriously, there's not a lot to talk about. That's part of the problem - it is not theoretically ambiguous at all.

Thanks for the first card you put on the table now can I get the other 51? — substantivalism

Truly don't know what you're saying here. If you could remove the metaphor I'd appreciate it.

I will no longer state all individuals are either male or female. Some are mosaic 46,XX/46 XY — Malcolm Parry

They are male or female. I have responded to Michael on this, harking back to plenty of further support I've given earlier in the thread.

Does this imply anything different from how we treat other people, how public policy treats them differently — substantivalism

An awkward question. It didn't seem to until about 10 years ago, no. It does seem to now - but that's because people are denying it.

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

No. Most laws are vague and require several years (sometimes decades) of case law to figure out what's really going on. Sometimes judges admonish the legislature for this reason. Many laws Icannot be adequately particularised. So, i wont engage that particular charge.

That way nature can take its proper course. — substantivalism

I can't tell if you're being facetious here. You have taken something I said and suggested something I didn't comes along with it. If that's your view, I disagree with it.

It's in being proactive and preventative that the true difficulty lies. That is where true societal growth can be had. — substantivalism

No. This is the entire premise of the side of this issue I am on. Preventative measures to avoid the inevitable abuse females will face when more males are in their intimate spaces (empirically wrong or right, I'm just saying that's the line of thinking).

Take true hermaphroditism — Michael

A misleading term which refers to something that isn't real. There are zero humans who are not male or female. Your quotes discuss aberrant phenotype only. That does not determine sex, it differentiates it. I am becoming less able to continually repeat these things as I gave sources for these claims earlier.

this suggests that the condition is the result of constitutive activation of a gene normally triggered by SRY.

This makes it extremely clear what we're talking about. Males, or females. Again, these aren't my ideas - these are what the sources given tell us.

Perceived risk isn't real risk. — fdrake

Cool. Then given the risk of 'a man' assaulting a woman is something like 5/100 - no more gendered spaces. Yay! Murders can have guns. Drug users can have access to their drugs without oversight. Yay!
Obviously this is facetious, but its a true illustration of the disrespect of this retort to female anxiety about males.

and I showed you a meta analysis which refutes the claim. — fdrake

You did not, as gone over in previous comment/s. Children probably engage in personal violence with family members more than any other group but..... What would we say here??? There is no fucking risk.

I imagine your only argument here would be to say that poker or chess are not 'sports'? Or are you in favour of men only poker and women only poker? — I like sushi

My argument here is: They are delineated. There seems to be inherent differences in abilities between these two groups, in those areas. I don't think a female has ever made it to the final table of the World Series of Poker and there is a 21/1000 ratio of female to male grandmasters in Chess. I don't have a view on this issue because there is no risk to life or limb - but males competing in female poker tournaments are clearly at an advantage. I make no further on that.

suggestion that the terms "biological male" and "biological female" each describe some unambiguous and mutually exclusive biological property that every human has shows a misunderstanding of both biology and language — Michael

No. It is an actual fact. Intersex is misleading and describes a variation in phenotype only. I have very clearly been over this. It is simply not an argument in fabour of your position - it is erroneous.

I guess you are too young to have experienced the rigidity of gender norms that used to prevail. — unenlightened

No, not at all. When I was young 'fairy' was still a social-life-ending epithet. You have not engaged my question, though. If you truly think there were swathes of people unable to tell you from a female because you had long hair, I'm not interested in conversing further. If you're willing to accept that a feigned confusion to support bigotry was the go, we're good.

as if visual contact were dangerous. — unenlightened

It seems, contrary to your rather glib and silly parenthesis, that this is the case. Where people are found in more states of undress, more assaults occur (the home, particularly). But this isn't all that relevant so happy to say sure - and leave it.

If we want everyone to know our sex, why hide the parts that distinguish it most clearly? — unenlightened

Humans are 93+% accurate at telling sex from face alone. This is a non-argument.

A trans-woman child abuser is likely to be murdered in a men's medium security prison — frank

Fixed it. All good.

I get the feeling there are more comments to add, so I apologise for what might be a triple post here.

The argument roughly goes that the trans woman appears as a man to attendees and is thus unsafe. Which isn't really an argument, but I'm not going to convince you of that. — fdrake

It is, though. This is a really well-known phenomenon, to the point that males are routinely excluded from crisis shelters (even children of the victim, if over the age of I think seven where I live). The reason is because the risk of causing further trauma, or at least curtailing rehabilitation, is far, far more weighty than the possibility a male is going to get a bit upset about being excluded from a female safe space. The point here is that the female part does the lifting. Violating this isn't something males have open to them, without force. It is for the in-group to decide. I don't think that's at all controversial (and in this case, it seems empirically reasonable).

misleading — fdrake

I would go ahead and ask all of your female network their views on IPV, and the roles of males in the wider picture. I think you'll get some pretty stark responses (I also note flipping between academic record, and personal anecdote/story-telling might be making this harder for us. I think we're both doing that).

one or more acts of physical aggression

Let me know what acts are considered under this head. I imagine the study, and not the claim, is misleading for this reason. A more telling study would be this one. Even taking your point (incl. references) as wholesale reliable, and accurate this further consideration makes it pale and unhelpful in context.

Again, transwomen are four times more likely to commit a sex crime, and I'm happy to egregiously calibrate for benefit-of-the-doubt to two times more likely. Fully two times more likely to commit a sex crime than non-trans males. This is an insurmountable obstacle to those who would claim either parity in risk, or a claim that transwomen are somehow magically female in behavioural trends. I again, also mention, plenty of trans people recognize this/these issues. They are sick and tired of people talking for them by either prevaricating or lying about what's going on in their community. They want acceptance, and the complete inability for social groups. I am willing to take them at face value, given that the other side of the coin is invariably (in my personal experience) aggressive, unwilling to even listen, sometimes violent and massively misogynistic. I tend to take the less-hysterical of the two sides more seriously - particularly when some empirical considerations fall to that side and it is, on any account, possibly to see "being trans" as a mental illness (dysphoria - not a moral claim). I don't think there's anything wrong with that. My experiences support the data that I am aware of (and the view of females in my orbit besides three I can name - one of which is severely mentally ill). I simply don't have anything to go on which would lead me to conclusions such as yours.

Furries are not able to compete in dog shows. No idea why self-ID is allowed to violate categories in humans, but not among dogs.

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

Because there is no controlling data in involved. Bit of a non sequitur. Nevertheless, I can see the point trying to be made. They are all female. Trans women are male. Males carry certain patterns of behaviour , unless we're going to either shirk evolution or pretend that 'soul's exist giving rise to the 'wrong body' nonsense. Being female inherently reduces the risk of harm. Intimate partner 'violence' may be relatively even - but intimate partner harm is immensely skewed in one direction. This is inarguable. There is no epidemic of wives killing their husbands.

Males harm females. That is almost a truism of humans. Historically, currently and there is no obvious end to it. Trans women are male.

I see no need to go further... (other than acknowledging the equally sound point made by the two comments after your reply that IPV by females is almost exclusively in response to abuse).

An opportunity to make a very clear point though:

But I'd argue that there is a difference between the sex you are born as and the gender you identify as — Wolfy48

I agree. But gender doesn't dictate much of anything in day-to-day life. Sex does. It is just the muddling of terms to service a mental state that has lead to any of hte current controversy. Just don't do that.. feelings, particularly male feelings, aren't arguments. I am not particularly concerned with how upset a male gets for not being allowed into female spaces. I simply don't care. That is just something you'll need to suck up. I'm not allowed into women's changing rooms either. Difference is, I don't want to. This is now getting into personal 'gripe' area, but there seems a trend among TRAs that they need to be in womens bathrooms. If the issue is that you need to be affirmed, that's not something you can put on someone else. If the issue is you're worried about being unsafe in male spaces, go to neutral spaces. If you require women's spaces you have a hidden motive (well, no - but it certainly isn't safety if you require something more than a safer space).