Anyone who says "trans men are men" understands that these trans men have XX chromosomes, a womb, and (except those that have had surgery) female genitalia, hence why they used the term "trans men". — Michael

So trans men are female is a fair statement? So some men are female.

Which is fine if everyone is happy with using the term men to include female No issue at all (although I disagree with it and think it is ludicrous and misogynist)
The crux is should women's spaces and sports be for female's only. For sport it is incredibly unfair and sometimes dangerous to include males. For exclusive places there are very sound reasons why they should remain female only.
The rest of the issue regarding gender is getting less and less relevant the more roles of women in society changes. There is not a job they are excluded from, there are no clothes they have to wear etc etc etc.

should we continue with this historical separation, or ought our modern society introduce a new separation based instead on gender? — Michael

This is exactly what it boils down to.
For sports and female exclusive spaces the answer is keep it exactly as it is. Complete separation. No men2 anywhere near women1 sports or exclusive places.
For the rest, gender is irrelevant.

Again - I am unsure about the introduction of the term "empty vessel" into this discussion. — Questioner

Well the brain structure seems to determine how someone perceives themselves. If I have understood your point.

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the word "pre-determined" in this context — Questioner

Female brains think like females. Male brains think like males. A bloke with a female brain will think he’s female. It’s predetermined.
Unless I’ve misunderstood your point.

If you are alone in a room, away from society, are you still you? Does a man live in his head, or in his testicles? The brain is the seat of our identity, and our self-image. — Questioner

You have a very pre determined way of looking at the self. What do you deem to be your identity and where did it come from?
Sitting in a room alone you still are a product of every interaction you have had with others and the world and the history of thought. You aren’t an empty vessel that has a woman’s or a man’s brain.

What is a brain that doesn't match the body? How would it even function? — Outlander

What do you mean by match the body? It would function perfectly well surely?

A person's identity is not produced by their ovaries or their testes but by their brains — Questioner

No. That is clearly false. It is obvious in 99.99% of cases with a mere glance whether someone is a man or woman. How they think is irrelevant in modern society.

A delusion is characterized by a false reality. — Questioner

It is a false reality. Males cannot be women.

I think it is just about "being" - being who you are. — Questioner

Yes. Men have delusions that they are women.

Not at all. — Questioner

Absolutely.

What makes a woman a woman anyway?

That quote says no more than that there are male and female brains — Questioner

You stated some men have female brains. Or have I misinterpreted your posts?
If this is true, how does it follow that a male is not delusional to think that he is a woman?
Is a male with a female brain not just a man with some feminine (based on gender) characteristics?
Why is there a need to be seen by others to be a woman?
It all seems to be based on sexist assumptions of what a woman is.

I've never said this. — Questioner

It was a direct quote

their brains truly are in reality male or female - and this is their reality, not a delusion. — Questioner

How is a male’s brain truly in reality female?

Is there a non binary brain?

Part of doing philosophy is following an argument to where it leads. You did that, then reneged. — Banno

I don’t think you “do” philosophy.

I think it is interesting to see some confusion here in what is being said and what is meant: — I like sushi

I think the issue is fairly simple but the waters are muddied by people wishing to be kind and accommodating wishes that then compromise and impact on others.
The main issue is the bastardisation and manipulation of the concept of gender. The contortion of the terms woman and man.

I have a few personal simple rules for reacting to day to day stuff.
I have two people I care about and would do anything for. Anyone else my involvement is subject to conditions.
I give everyone I like total respect and expect it back. If i get disrespected that person is off the team. I only have people in my life that bring joy and interest.
Most people I am indifferent but pleasant to and very few people I actively dislike. The people I dislike are not in my life for[ seconds to decide to do something or then it is filed as irrelevant. So much clarity when confronted with something that is a pain.
This is obviously in the very personal sphere but it certainly works for me.

How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? — GreekSkeptic

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Do you think we'll see a true survival show by 2035? Like deathmatches or frantic races? — Astorre

Not in a world where there is still a semblance of liberal values. If something fundamental happened to the world then mores could change drastically but until then, not a chance. Imho.

Stealing a loaf of bread is something I would consider "doing something bad in order to survive".

The narcotics scene on the other hand runs purely on ego and greed, as do the majority of criminal circuits. Just like a rapist or a murderer, they know what they're doing is wrong but do it anyway, and I would rank drug dealers and traffickers among rapists and murderers in terms of how inexcusable their actions are — Tzeentch

I think life is more complicated for many people than you do. Which is fine. I'm not going to change your mind, so there is little point in bothering.

Oh, one might very well apply nuance, but at that point I would start doubting their capacity for sound judgement. — Tzeentch

I agree on a fundamental level that the supply of meth is a bad thing but life isn't as simple for some. People end up doing things that others would consider reprehensible but when put in less comfortable position in life would consider doing bad stuff to survive or even prosper.

This is the issue that I do not feel is a proper demand for rights, much less an argument rooted in logic or fairness. This just seems to be discrimination and sexism wrapped up in a male desire to get things they want. But feel free to point out if you disagree. — Philosophim

I agree with that. I think it's a social reaction to the current political and social climate. There is no rigour in the thought processes of most of it. IMHO.

This is what the majorly active part of the trans community is asking as a right. They believe that gendered actions allow one into cross sex spaces or confer the right to be treated as that cross sex — Philosophim

Give some examples of gendered actions that would allow one into cross sex spaces? Specifically, female gendered actions that allow males into female exclusive spaces.

Surely trans people have the same human rights as everyone else.
The issue is can a male (sex) become a woman (gender) and the have the same rights as a female (sex)
I say they cannot make that change and go from being a male (sex) to a transwoman (gender) but are still male and have the same rights as any man.

A man voluntarily chooses to spend his final days on earth destroying the lives of as many people as possible by getting them hooked on meth - what room for nuance is there in our judgement of such a person? — Tzeentch

He doesn't get them hooked on meth. He is supplying a product that there is a demand for.This could be easily seen as an amoral act. There is an awful lot of nuance between your statement and mine. (I don't necessarily endorse the statement I made.)

Question 1: If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it?

Question 2: If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you? In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose. And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things.

Question 3: If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?

Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say? — Null Noir

Q1. No. There is doubt there is a self.
Q2. There isn't but I assume if a soul exists it would be separate.
Q3. I assume your soul is "you" so you may as well be a good boy (or girl)
Q4. It wouldn't.

This is the vow of a Compassionist:
1. I help all, harm none.
2. I see everyone - even the harmful, the indifferent, and the selfish - as shaped by forces beyond their control.
3. I replace blame and credit with understanding.
4. I replace judgment with care.
5. I love, not because the world is loving, but because love for all is the inevitable solution to the problems we face. — Truth Seeker

That sounds like an awful existence.

I could not be arsed with and I am dismissive of selfish people. My one existence is not being encumbered by people who are harmful or selfish. Indifferent is my status for all the people who are on the edges of my social circle.

1. Why the need to help all? Some people need a kick up the arse.
2. I get how environment etc moulds a person but once you become an adult you have agency to change
3 I respect everyone until they lose respect
4 That is for very close family only. Everyone else will be cared for and judged on their merits.
5 I love the people who I have chosen to have in my life. The rest are in zone of indifference. I like being indifferent to people who bring nothing into my life. I'm indifferent to people who try and bring harm. I won't waste emotional energy on people who mean nothing to me.

I'm definitely not a follower of compassionism.

My man, I say it to piss you off, cause you're one of those types that's easily turned into a puppet. Cause I got 0 empathy for the bullshit of lastmen. But I will suffer a fool, for my own good health. — DifferentiatingEgg

What a bizarre post. You carryon.

Well, in the realm of philosophy it is called philosophical pessimism. My hunch is that philosophical pessimism is more attune with how emotive it is with the aspect of depression professes itself. Might sound like a word-salad but I think there's truth to philosophical pessimism. — Shawn

I get that and it is a sound enough (if miserable) concept but I would baulk at describing depression as healthy. I suppose it depends on the term depression as well.

I think depression is a healthy attitude as long as it remains an attitude — Shawn

In what context would depression be healthy?

What constitutes depression in this circumstance?

My seek is more focused on human behaviour and personal circumstances which lead us to an incomprehensible suffering. — javi2541997

I come from the opposite end of the spectrum and I believe that it is childhood and what happens in childhood that moulds the adult. Not that these things are set in stone.

I was brought up on a council estate in Northern England and everything was ordered. My family was two parents. One worked, the other looked after the home and us lot.

Crucially for me, my parents did not put any expectations upon us and we got three meals a day (simple meals but filling)

My world view was one of fun and order and I have taken that throughout my life. I have live an ordinary life but have repeated the pattern. My only child was brought up similarly (with more emphasis on education) but she has repeated the pattern. My wife and child work in Mental health jobs and see the damage done by childhood. It isn't just horrendous stories but just parents being not very good.

Patterns of thought are repeated through life and while I have read plenty of Dostoyevsky etc it all seems over the top and childish. I understand people live in terrible circumstances but the perspectives on life of many of my fellow humans seems bizarre to m but I have a fascination with neuro science (on a very basic level) and I understand my experience is my own and in different circumstance I would have been a different personality. I'm also a fan of the Stoics but cherry pick the bits that are relevant to me.

What is it about yourself you feel bad about? Don't answer if you don't want to.

I’m definitely not your man. You stick to your own shit.

Perhaps you should say my book, since you are the author :wink: — Heracloitus

That is class. I wonder if he has worked why we no longer queue in UK as much as we used to.

My answer is simple: the world is as it is because that is how the world and we humans evolved. — Pieter R van Wyk

How is that different to my example? What do you propose to order society better?

Yes, we seem to be struggling with the same moral dilemmas we've been struggling with for 1000s of years. Religion and politics stem from ethics and ethics are subjective, which is why my default attitude is "live and let live". — Harry Hindu

It is fascinating how the Greeks infiltrate everything we do and value and how things changed when scientists worked stuff out and knowledge accumulated.
I’m happy to live the life I have and enjoy it as it is. I’m not looking for why and superior reason for existence.
I don’t think it exists and everyone trying to force some higher power or reason is just guessing. Which is fine as a pastime but not for me.
I’m grateful for the great thinkers in the past who have allowed a framework for my life to be built. However, the permissive aspect of modern world, combined with ultra safety consciousness , has made it less free in my opinion.
The modern world needs a very strict framework of what is acceptable and freedom within that framework for self expression. The Japanese were very good at building such a framework but I doubt the world could ever be ordered like that until there was some extreme disaster and there was a survival issue for mankind.

I’ve read the Greeks and I’m fascinated how we got where we are today. How we think and what knowledge we have amassed, especially in science. It is mind blowing. But I don’t see any significant contribution to how we live and order society from modern philosophy. It may be my ignorance but I’m aware of quantum mechanics and relativity.

've learned a lot just by participating (often badly) in discussions. I find I'm most interested in views different from my own. If you resist or mistrust something, chances are you need to understand it better. Philosophy is very difficult and its complexity is spread across centuries, it's an impossible subject to fully master, but one from which we can all snatch an occasional insight. I understand very little myself and don't have the time understand it much better. — Tom Storm

That is why I joined but I find most of the exchanges esoteric and stilted. Snatching insights is all I want from the subject. I have my own world view more or less sorted but the odd bit of the stoics or Nietzsche etc give me further insight. Most of the esoteric stuff is (for me) pointless or I have absorbed it as part of being born in second half of 20th Century in Europe (UK)

But the modern world is a product of philosophy: secularism, naturalism, scientism, and neoliberalism all of these have built the fabric of our culture and how we see reality. And yet it all remains in flux. The world today is very different from how it was when I was a teenager, and it's changing as we speak. Don't expect it to look like this in 50 years. — Tom Storm

I agree 100%. The changes are brought about by changes in science and innovation. There are seismic shifts in social settings too. I don't see much of current philosophy being relevant to what is happening.
It is fascinating though.

moved from the boring to the derivative? — Tom Storm

Are you implying mid 70s prog is boring?:gasp:

Do you mean by this that philosophy has moved from the boring to the derivative? — Tom Storm

I just don't see it has very much to do with the modern world. All the major shifts in thought have been assimilated and now the proponents are irrelevant to modern way of life. The capitalists and mammon have won. The modern world and capitalism etc have brought untold riches to billions of people but the cost is massive and I don't see any major thinkers having any influence on the way the world is ordered.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy in my small niche of untold wealth and can order my life to bring me joy and happiness and I like to read philosophy as it can change how I think but I don't see any influence on the modern world from philosophy today. That may be ignorance but if I don't see it, I doubt the vast majority of punters will either.
This place may have jaundiced me because most of the discussions are over my head and I'm not stupid.

My analogy for philosophy now is that it seems to be the equivalent of prog rock fans discussing an obscure album from 1973 in minute detail when the world is listening to Taylor Swift, Chappell Roan.and other popular artists.

Sympathy means you can detect the problem, because you understand what's going on... doesn't mean you give a damn about helping. — DifferentiatingEgg

That isn't true at all. People can have sympathy for someone's situation and help. Empathy is having an understanding and sharing feelings. How can a man who hasn't had a child have empathy with a mother who has lost her child? They can have massive sympathy and help the women as much as they are able but I cannot see how someone could claim empathy.

1. What, exactly, do you mean by 'system'? — Pieter R van Wyk

The system was that people stood in line and waited their turn.

You mention unwritten rules that were followed and then not followed - is that not the basis of any political change and if so, we humans has been doing that for as long as philosophy has been studied, not so? — Pieter R van Wyk

I was pointing out why this is. From your opening post. If everyone doesn't buy in, then we get a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!"

Your contribution is appreciated and thank you for the plain english but I do not find myself closer to an answer to my question. — Pieter R van Wyk

The answer is some people will always be selfish c**ts if they think they can get away with it and there aren't sufficient rules and discipline to stop them. It isn't rocket science.

Why do you think the world is as it is?

In England we have always had a system of queuing. It was an agreed set of unwritten rules and no one transgressed. The system worked was egalitarian and was literally "first come first served"

This has degenerated in the last few decades and people try and game the system. Once there is a small breakdown in the system, it rapidly becomes every man (or woman) for themselves.

We can have wonderful ideas about no strife, everyone being fed etc etc but as soon as a couple of people jump the queue the result is chaos and the breakdown of balance in society.

Also, when there is inequality then there is resentment and people wishing to get more than they have when they see others with more.

I also think we like a struggle and a bit of a scrap.

Not one ism was quoted there.