"I am confused by the ban having exceptions. How is anyone supposed to know the limits? And it just dawned on me, using Grammarly may be against the rules. I am screwed if that is so because I can't spell." --

Athena, I think you are misunderstanding how AI works. When you ask AI to respond to an argument, it is expressing its own opinion. Not your opinion. The forum wants discussion between humans, not between AI. Using AI to refine your posts, or correct spelling is fine, as it is still your opinion being expressed. But if AI writes the response, you aren't expressing your opinion; you are expressing the AI's opinion. AI is known to be very overconfident, making up information when it cannot find any on a subject. By posting an AI response, you are posting the opinion of an unempathetic, brainless, untrustworthy robot. The forum does not want this.

Alright, I think I'll throw my 2 cents in here. I haven't looked through all the responses to this post just yet, but I think one issue that we are all at fault for is definitions. Whether or not "woke" is bad depends entirely on what your definition of "woke" is. If your definition is equality, social justice, and human rights activism, then yes, I would say woke is good. If your definition of woke is defunding the police, inciting violence, and blatant discrimination, then I agree that woke is bad. It is the same with the term "fascist". "Fascism" is a mix of many ideologies and can take many forms, and has a very loose definition. In this day and age "fascist" is a slur people throw at people who don't share the same political beliefs. "You like trump? fascist" or "You support DEI? fascist" are common enough in the politcal landscape that it makes you wonder which side is actually fascist. The issue is, again, that there is only loose definitions of some words, such as "woke" or "fascist", people will have different definitions of what they mean, making it very hard to say whether or not something is or isn't describable using those terms. This leads to association fallacies, where people say "Fascist A did this, therefore anyone who does this is fascist" which is obviously wrong, just as saying "Woke person A wants this, therefore everyone who wants this is woke" is. Both terms are now just generalized umbrella terms that people use for things they don't like. For example, I support racial equality, gay rights, and freedom of expression. Some would call this woke. But I also support globalism, militarism, and big stick diplomacy. Some would call this fascist. I point this out because I think other's perspectives can be hard to understand, especially when the terms we use to describe said perspectives are loose, undefined umbrella terms. But on the subject of this post, I agree that the far-left swing that Western politics has taken in the last few decades is starting to swing back the other way. The reason for this is simple, people got caught up in their movements and took it too far. Once anti-racism movements started advocating for racial discrimination, lots of people started to question their support for the movement, leading to the swing back we are witnessing in the USA and Europe. I would say it's less society swinging away from the movements, and more the movements swinging away from society. There is of course a worry of counter-woke movements taking it too far in the other direction, but I hope that as they get more and more hypocritical and extreme, they too, lose steam. I'm not really making any claims here, simply stating why this is a hard subject to debate on, and how I interpret "The End of Woke".

"In this way a person who screams something inappropriate such as the aforementioned "Heil Hitler" is put down by society. On the other hand a person who supports 'Black Lives Matter' or 'Transgender Rights', while facing opposition has a chance of overcoming it." --

I fully agree with this! I think that the government being able to limit freedom of speech is a very quick road to oppression. Society should be the voice of reason, pushing down on unpopular opinions. There are issues, such as if the majority is racist, than racial justice groups get put down, but that can change with time. Morals and standards are constantly shifting with time period and geography, and what is ok today might not be tomorrow, and what is illegal today might one day be common sense. So yes, I agree that society should decide what people can and can't say, not the government.

"This is simply to say that if you are submitting that your position promotes the Good for whatever reason, then you are presenting to me your understanding of the Good, yet you prefaced this conversation with the self-awareness that you are not sure what the Good is.
" --

To answer your question, this was simply a quick write. I was bored and thought it would be fun to write my own political philosophy. As for why you would WANT this kind of system? I feel most wouldn't, unless you have a strong conviction for stability and enforcing your views on others.


"Why? I guess that's my real question. Why do you want morality, friendliness, and being a chill guy?"
--

Honestly? Idk. I still have basic human desires for connection and social life, and I still have hobbies that I enjoy. Being moral and friendly makes these easier. And if I fake it hard enough, it almost feels real? It's usually only temporary but I have various ways to make it last.

Thank you for the criticisms! I agree there are several major flaws in that doctrine. Those flaws would obviously need to be combed over by many individuals to work out a valid solution, whereas I am one man and bound to miss things. While I could try to defend various claims in my article, I'm not particularly keen on doing so, as A) I am trying to be a better person and B) I would rather dedicate my time to other arguments. But yes, I agree with a lot of your claims.

"You think men should be able to use women’s bathrooms?" -- \

Quite frankly, I think that bathrooms should just be individual locking rooms, like what you see at most restaurants. For me the issue isn't whether or not the people in the room have dicks, it's the fact that there's people in the room.

"Do you think scientific facts are opinions that you may or may not disagree with?" --

No, facts are facts. But when a fact is undecided on, then it can't really be used in an argument, and facts have no bearing on interpretation and opinion. It is a decided fact that people can be born male or female. It is an undecided fact that they can be born something else, rarely. It is an opinion that sex and gender are not the same thing.

"I’m not going to play along especially if this violates female rights to exclusive areas."
--

Look, I know this is coming from a good place but that is the same excuse that people used to justify racial segregation in the States

"We can agree to disagree." --

I concur, there is no use arguing over whose opinion is scientifically correct, as neither can be 'correct'. I don't agree with your views, but their YOUR views, not mine.

"Sex is binary. It isn’t a spectrum. It isn’t an opinion" --

The argument is on gender, not sex, and in any case, the majority of scientists state that there are more than two sexes... (though the others are uncommon)

"However, women have fought for certain rights and I don’t think it is for men to barge into their exclusive spaces" --

And that's not a bad stance, except for all the people that have their identities violated by that interpretation.

"Replace trans people with the word men." --

Ok so now trans women can go to the women's bathroom, works for me ;3

It has.
--

Idk man, how would you even scientifically prove how to interpret a definition?

"Because gender describes the societal and cultural differences between the sexes. It doesn’t mean a man becomes a woman." --

That's a valid opinion for you to have, but not one that everyone shares. I certainly don't think that the state should have the right to decide such matters of opinion for the people, but hey, not much I can do about it (yet)

"We cannot, post-hoc, prevent harm." --

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

"No he isn’t and the earth isn’t flat either" --

Well uhhhh... ok? I personally think that everyone is allowed to form their own opinions when science can't provide a clear answer...

"I’m not confusing it at all." --
So why do you continue to say that sex is scientifically the same as gender? It's not.

"But it is, almost always, males. That's the point - not that all males are abusers. Try not to take it personally" --

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.

"That's fine, but the point stands in terms of sorting out why there's such a furor over it."
--

The general outrage over is that people who consider themselves to be women are not being allowed into the women's restroom, and when they ask why, they receive the answer: "Because you're not a real woman," which is hurtful to them and disregards their right of self-expression.

"This is sexual assault." --

Nowhere in that article is a claim made of sexual assault.

"But this also applies to changing rooms where females have the right to not be seen in the nick by males." --

I'd argue that EVERYONE has a right to not be seen naked by ANYONE. And if you do not wish for a certain group of people to see you naked, don't get naked in front of said group of people.

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

This paper never mentions the numbers you quote, was done with a subject size of less than 50, and only used the faces of people who identify as the gender they were born as. Some drugs, such as testosterone and estrogen, change the shape and texture of the face, and the study says nothing about that. Not to mention, the study you provided specifically states that they only used isolated faces, and that cues such as dress, hairstyle, and makeup also are taken into account when identifying someone's gender.

"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." --

As I have stated before, the exact definitions of the words "gender," "man," and "woman" are not very precise, and are left up to the interpretation of the individual. You are free to interpret the word "woman" as meaning whatever you would like, but there is no way to prove that your opinion is the better opinion.

"If you don't take a scientific definition of sex seriously, there's not a lot to talk about"
--

I do take the scientific definition of sex seriously, I just don't believe that Sex Assigned At Birth is the same as gender. Also, it is debated whether or not intersex is a separate sex from male and female, and the generally accepted answer is that yes, intersex is a completely different sex from male or female.

"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" --

This goes against most generally accepted science on the concept of the sexes, and ignores the proof that the person you are responding to lays down.

"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."
--

Well, I still argue there is ambiguity, but I'm confused as to what you mean by policy. Who's policy?

"Compare them with control groups (the general population). 0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women." --

No, the study you quoted states that transwomen follow a similar trend as cis men for sexual violence (a bit less likely, actually), nowhere does it claim that transwomen are MORE likely to commit a sexual crime than a cis man. As for '0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women', can you provide a source for this information?

"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." --

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.

" Does this imply anything different from how we treat other people, how public policy treats them differently, whether certain stereotypes are here to stay or not, lawful language, difference in lawful enactments/application, behavioral absolutism, self-policing on gender roles, etc? "
--

I fully agree! While it is true that you are (typically) born one sex or the other, that does not determine what society has to think or what someone has to express themselves as in the future.

ok bro I'm not sure what you're yapping about. The legal definition of assault is to physically attack or threats that cause the victim to reasonably fear that they in danger of imminent assault and bodily harm. Aka about to be physically harmed. What definition of asault are you using?

"You think sex is a spectrum?" --

I don't think that's what he's saying, but if he is, he is just as entitled to hold that belief as you are entitled to hold yours.

"Assault, for example, does not require contact." --

Here's the definition of assault... applies to the legal definition too, btw:
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
as·sault
/əˈsôlt/
verb
make a physical attack on.

"Similarly, intrusion does not require immediate presence. In essence your view is that the women and their concerns fall and yield to the intruder. " --

So what is intrusion in the women's restroom if not for immediate presence? And to the second part, I'm confused, is the concern not about sexual assault in the restroom?

"Eradicating the biological and social aspects that are unique to females." --

Again, I fear you are confusing sex assigned at birth with gender. I believe that the two are different, if you do not share that opinion, then I fear you are claiming that over 50% of feminists are misogynistic, since most 3rd and 4th wave feminists support trans rights and inclusion.

"Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain rolls out. - anonymous" --

That's not an anonymous quote actually, it was said by Walter Kotschnig (Sorry I know this is really petty but I'm having fun ;3)

"The idea that biological sex is not a meaningful concept or ambiguous in any way is complete boneheaded nonsense" --

I never said that biological sex was ambiguous, just that Men aren't definitively always more violent than Women.

Also, of course it's a meaningful concept, I'm just arguing that it doesn't define gender

"This is terrible misogyny. Also, utter nonsense." --

How is it misogyny, and how is it nonsense?

"Because there are only two sexes." --

But this is a discussion on gender, not sexes. Also, still wrong, as the very rare intersex case shows that there is more than two sexes, in any case.

"How about a return to civics for high school students and health books that prepare first graders for civics in high school?" --

I agree that education is good, and leads to better decisions, but that education should something that people are able to explore on their own to form their own opinions. If the education about the state is coming only from the state, that will bias people and will almost certainly result in an authoritarian state. If the state controls education, who has the education to control the state?

I just don't see the value in the point of "You are either taught to support what we want, or you are considered uneducated and silenced." Well, I do see the value if you're a dictator or a pervasive authoritarian state, but if you are standing for a liberal democracy, that really seems counter-intuituve.

"Right now, too many people have very limited knowledge, and letting them loose is about like letting all the animals in a zoo loose" --

So you wish to silence the uneducated? That seems very... uhhhh.... bad? No offense but to me everyone should have a voice, not just those you deem "educated"

"freedom of expression is problematic because that can mean unacceptable acts of violence"
--

Yes, for sure, but this is why I quickly specified that I only support the freedom of expression if it does not harm others

"Especially not when the population is educated for technology but not educated about the virtues and principles of a liberal democracy" --

Hm... I understand the viewpoint that unrestricted freedom leads to anarchy, but how can you simultaneously argue for liberal democracy and the restriction of speech? I support non-violent expression, and I feel like suppressing those with a different viewpoint than yourself is the OPPOSITE of a liberal democracy...

Ok finally I've responded to all this. Wow that took forever. That was fun lol

"It certainly isn’t a spectrum like some claim." --

Why is it certain? I think that while genitalia certainly influence biological factors, and people tend to stick with the gender associated with those genitalia, the biological traits associated with the "two sexes" greatly vary between individuals with the same genitals. There are naturally submissive people who were assigned male at birth, and naturally dominant people who were assigned female at birth. While the sex you are born as has a big impact on what traits you have, it certainly is a spectrum of traits, and the spectrum for assigned male at birth and assigned female at birth overlap quite a bit.

"My point is why are you believing one psychiatrist when the issue is still unresolved? Do you question all authorities, or cherry-pick which authorities you believe?" --

You say this like you have not been doing the same thing this whole argument. You have been cherry-picking sources, just as you have been claiming the same views as various experts on the subject, despite the issue still being unresolved. Cherry-picking sources is fine, that's how evidence works, but why is it ok for you to do but not others?

"when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject"
--

Yes, but does this not also refute your own point? The current scientific and psychological community very much disagrees on the subject of what defines gender, so quoting what some scientists say, or taking an expert's word at law to try and prove that Sex == Gender, or that Male == Violent, is Appeal to Authority.

"With the overwhelming majority of humans, there's no ambiguity" --
I'd argue that everyone's gentics are a little bit different, and when chemical drugs that change biological features, the ambiguity grows even more.

"This is what it means to be sexist - to confuse human attributes with sexual attributes - as if wearing a dress (both men and women can wear dresses - there is nothing about them physically that would prevent both from wearing a dress) is what defines you as being a woman as opposed to having a vagina." --

The dictionary definition of woman has no mention of a vagina or female sexual reproductive organs. So no, having a vagina does not make you a woman. Choosing to comport and express yourself as a woman is what makes you a woman. You could argue that Sex Assigned At Birth is what makes you a woman, but a large amount of people would disagree with you on that, so why hold so tightly to opinion that does nothing but offend, hurt, and de-validate others? There is no scientific proof as to how you have to interpret the word "woman", so it is a matter of opinion.

"So, which is it? Is gender a feeling or a social construct?" --
It's both. The idea of what a gender should act or look like is based on how society sees that gender. But the actual decision of which gender the individual wishes to express themselves as is up to them.

"Sure, the few hundred people out of billions and billions who meet that exceedingly strange criteria, may qualify as intersex and have a right to identify as the gender they choose"
--

I believe the argument about intersex is to prove that there is, in fact, the possibility for more than two genders, even using the "Sex Assigned At Birth == Gender" definition. 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.

"This is the nub of the issue. The term seems to have been hijacked." --

You say hijacked, but if the majority of the populace cannot make up their mind on what the term means, I'd say it is not properly defined.

"Then given the risk of 'a man' assaulting a woman is something like 5/100 - no more gendered spaces" --

Technically, the statistics in America show that African-Americans commit more crimes on average than any other race. Are you suggesting that we start segregating stores into black stores and everyone-else stores to prevent crime? I hope not. While I agree that there is a risk of sexual assault, saying "you can't come in here" does not prevent an abuser from just entering the restroom anyway. Discriminating against who can come in the bathroom would have a negligible effect on sexual assaults, to the point where I would argue that it is not justified to punish the majority of trans people because of the small chance that one would be a sexual predator, especially considering that excluding them from the restroom would do near nothing to prevent the assault.