Yes, destroying womens' sports is nuts, but how would you enforce a bathroom law? Suppose Al has transitioned to Alice and looks like a woman. Do you want to force Alice to use the men's restroom? Conversely, if Alice has transitioned to Al, and looks like a man, do you want to force Al to use women's restrooms? — RogueAI

Bathrooms have been used quite simply for decades. Not sure why it would be an issue now.

You wouldn't and you don't. So please just ignore the crazy people instead of baiting them. Because in responding to them you are already implying that they are amenable to persuasion and argument. Why do you keep asking a crazy person questions? Have you no sensible people to talk to? — unenlightened

I'm not baiting anyone. I'm interested in why people wish to eliminate women from sport and think female only facilities are unnecessary. I won't bother with you since you have made your stance clear and I doubt you will change.

I am happy for all sport to be destroyed, at least as a public display. And I am happy that women are generally not risking assault more when going to the public toilet than when walking down the street. Thus toilets need no more security than streets.

So you are happy asking leading questions like some cheap attorney rather than interpreting charitably and engaging with others on equal terms? — unenlightened

Why would I interpret charitably what I think is a crazy stance? Millions of women world wide enjoy sport but you would happily dismantle the structure that allows them to do that.
Women have much to contend with that I or any man doesn’t have to consider. Excluding men from exclusive women’s spaces is a simple and effective way of minimising assault (which is probably not the main issue) and embarrassment and feeling uncomfortable (which is hardly ever factored by men in discussing the issue) which of women having to share changing rooms and toilets with men.

I'm happy to let people who want to play games choose who they will or won't play with and against. Personally I think athletes cheat by exercising and practicing so we wimps stand no chance; so I won't compete in their sports.

I don't think restrooms need policing; they just need regular cleaning. I always use the one with the symbol person with trousers, not the one with the dress, but they are usually both 'open to anyone', except for the individual cubicles when occupied. — unenlightened

So you are happy for women’s sport to be destroyed and for women to risk assault when needing a to go to the toilet away from their home?

Personally, I'm happy to let people pick the toilet they feel most comfortable with, — unenlightened

You think all restrooms should be open to anyone? What about sports?

Great response. Your knowledge is greater than mine and I’ve learned a couple of things from these exchanges. My stance has not changed but it’s always good to acquire knowledge.

I think I've made my stance fairly clear. There are reasons why women have separate sports and separate exclusive places. Men (in which I include trans women) should not have access to these spaces. It is for society to work out how to protect trans women.

If you want to claim that the safety of cisgender women matters more than the safety of any other group, then just say it (and justify it). — Michael

There is a reason why the sexes have separate prisons. What about this don’t you understand?

Whereas you seem to be arguing that the safety of cisgender women matters more than the safety of transgender women, such that it's better for 10 transgender women to be the victims of sexual violence at the hands of a cisgender man than for 1 cisgender woman to the be the victim of sexual violence at the hands of a transgender woman? That would be incredibly sexist/transphobic — Michael

I’m arguing that men should not be allowed access to women’s spaces. If that is transphobia or sexism then I’m happy to be sexist and transphobic.

If our primary concern is in reducing the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population then we must determine which of these scenarios reduces the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population: — Michael

That’s exactly what a man would say.
Again why should women have to exposed to male violence for men to be protected from male violence?

And also how dangerous it is for a trans woman to be in a men's prison — Michael

Why should women be put at risk of male violence to protect men?

There is no single determinant in these cases. You seem to believe that the English words "male" and "female" refer to two clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive biological qualities, but that simply isn't the case. Human biology is far more complex than our vocabulary accounts for.

The reality is that the English words "male" and "female" developed to name the two main phenotypes that typically distinguish humans, with other words like "hermaphrodite" used to name those with a phenotype that differs from the typical two. We later discovered that these two phenotypes are typically caused by two main sets of chromosomes (XY and XX), but also that there are more than these two sets of chromosomes, and that the relationship between sex chromosomes and phenotype is not absolute (e.g. those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes but a phenotype that we would typically name "female"). — Michael

You are fixated on a tiny tiny minority of people that have had quirks in their development. These people are not a separate sex or both sexes.
I’m not sure what this brings to the debate. For the 99.98% of the results are 100% accurate.

And yet in your answer to my question above you didn't say "anyone can use bathroom A and anyone can use bathroom B".

So again you don't appear to be maintaining a consistent position. — Michael

I still haven't said it.

What molecules determine someone to be either a man or a woman?

But also your use of "immediately apparent" suggests that you think that biological sex is determined by outward appearance, and so not a concern of molecular biology at all, and brings back into question those who have undergone (complete) sex reassignment surgery.

You don't appear to be maintaining a consistent position. — Michael

It's quite an established field of science. I assume you already are aware or can look it up.

I think I can determine the sex of 99.999% of adults from a glance. It is only the tiny tiny minority of people you appear to be fixated on that may need more scientific basis to determine their sex.

So the law ought allow for anyone to use any bathroom? — Michael

It has worked quite well until about a decade ago. Not sure why it has become so complicated.

What would you suggest?

So which aspect of an intersex person’s biology determines them to be either male or female? — Michael

Molecular biology in the cases that are not immediately apparent.

That’s part of why the answer to these questions isn’t so simple. If a transgender man is outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender man and a transgender woman outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender woman then how is something like bathroom usage to be legislated and policed?

If we legislate to say that sex chromosomes determine which bathroom someone can use (ignoring for the moment the case of being intersex) then someone like Buck Angel (as he has already been mentioned) is going to face constant abuse and arrest for using the “women’s” bathroom because by outward appearance he looks like the typical biological man. — Michael

It is extremely simple. If someone is indistinguishable then no one will know or care. The law does not need to get involved. Just like they don't need to get involved when very masculine looking women go to the loo.

If Buck Angel is a woman then Buck Angel can go to the female facilities.

What about biology determines if someone is male or female? You don’t seem to recognise that being intersex is a biological condition. — Michael

I recognise that intersex people have ambiguous genitalia, reproductive organs, chromosones etc. But they aren't neither or both sexes.

Is this also true of those who undergo sex reassignment surgery (including genitals)? Or is it only “natural” appearance that matters? — Michael

I would say only natural but if someone has surgery and looks like a woman, who would know otherwise?

Determined by what? — Michael

Biology.

I’m not disputing your suggestions, just seeking clarity. — Michael

What are you confused about?

They’re intersex — Michael

There is no person that is not male or female. There may be difficulty categorising them when they are young but they are either male or female. If there is some doubt then they should use the facilities that most reflect their appearance.

The general gist I get from your answer is that the divisions should be “cisgender women” and “everyone else”? — Michael

There is a reason why women have exclusive sports and have exclusive spaces. I doubt any bloke would care about changing rooms/lavatories or competing with women. Is it not obvious why there is segregation?

It was non-binary with ambiguous genitalia, i.e biologically intersex. — Michael

Yes. They are one sex or the other.

I took "non-binary" as someone who chooses to consider themselves neither gender.

We have to place each of a cisgender man, a cisgender woman, a transgender man, a transgender woman, and two non-binary individuals with ambiguous genitalia into one of the teams and one of the bathrooms.

Who goes where and why? — Michael

Cis gender man Team A (assuming A is male)
Cis gender woman Team B
Transgender Man Team A or B. (If it is sports and testosterone has been used the they would be illegible for Team B) If it is a bathroom then again A or B as most members of Team A would not feel threatened by a trans man.
Transgender Woman Team A (There is significant advantages in virtually all sports from going through male puberty) Bathroom Team A. A trans woman is biologically male and biological males have been excluded from female only spaces for obvious reasons. This may chamge if society changes but we are a long way off.
Non Binary Team A or B according to their biological sex.

Not that difficult

I know, I was seeing what NOS4A2 had to say about that as he believes:

No, I do not believe there should be consequences for speech, and yes, I do believe people should be able to say whatever they want at any point with no consequence ever.
— NOS4A2 — Samlw

I see. It is interesting. I don't think any words that could be uttered would upset me in any way unless there was an imminent threat of violence and then it wouldn't be the words, it would be the violence that was the alarming thing.
Any slander wouldn't bother me if there were no consequences but the fact that there could be consequences would mean there should be redress for any damage done. I'm an advocate for not suppressing thoughts but some untruthful words do have direct impact on the recipient and cannot be allowed to be said unchallenged. IMHO.

If I was passing by a school on the street and I started screaming really threatening stuff to the children on the other side of the gate, should I be arrested? — Samlw

I think there is a fundamental difference between an assault and broadcasting ideas (even very unpalatable ideas)

The fragmentation of community may be a contributing factor to problems, especially isolation as so much is done alone, on-line. Such isolation may foster self-centerdness because it involves living in an egoistic bubble. Lockdowns created isolation, which affected mental health on a long term basis and in the midst of lockdown there was such a transition to virtual life which may be creating many kinds of problems. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. The framework of society in which we live has been mangled. Not for the better IMHO.

This may be right. But maybe not. By and large, humans like interacting with other humans. No matter how human a machine seems, knowing that it's a machine, I don't know if I'd bother. — Patterner

We are hardwired to like interacting. It ensures a higher likelihood of out genes being passed down.

However, the modern world has disconnected from the hunter gatherer scenario we evolved into. Some gamers and young people spend most of their time in a virtual world. they might swap reality of interacting with "people" with an augmented world that reacts with "people".

100% not for me

I understand why you don’t feel joy. Carry on.

As the world (as we know it is 'being dismantled, there no universal consensus about morality and what is acceptable. This was drawn from postmodern analysis and culture relativism. However, that doesn't mean necessarily that ideas of human rights and economic ethics are insignificant and meaningless. What do you think about this? — Jack Cummins

I think the classic standards of service to society and responsibility by the better off in society is more desperately needed than ever. The Victorians had their faults but they built great buildings, public parks and in the 20th Century there was social housing/NHS etc.
Also, there is no structure of what is acceptable any more. The Self has become a selfish infant for many many people.

It’s more like wondering if all that is meaningful is just chemical signal and therefor nothing special. Hobbies, relationships, all that. I’ve stopped feeling joy because of it, I think that if I do something I like it means I value joy and pleasure and would have to accept the experience machine and plug in. — Darkneos

Is that true? That is a convoluted way to look at your existence.

I agree that initiatives need to be started and ones that are innovative as opposed to punitive. The problem may be that the needs of the people, as opposed to those in power, need to be addressed. — Jack Cummins

There is no general consensus about what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, what we should do as a society and what we are responsible for as individuals.
currently, the world is a billionaires plaything. The structured society that was built over many decades is slowly being dismantled.

Indeed. Our knowing it was machine-induced, if that was the case, or even if we thought that was the case, would become part of the experience.

But that's not necessarily bad. I'm told there are amazing VR things out there. I have only experienced one brief thing in a mall. I was a bird flying way above some mountains. It wasn't high quality VR. It was just a drawing, although a very nice one. Anyway, I knew I was not a bird, and that I was in VR. It was still a great experience. Except for getting slightly nausea. I knew if was VR, and it looked like a drawing. And yet, my stomach turned at a rather tame aerial maneuver. Despite the discomfort, it was amazing that that happened to me. — Patterner

My point was that eventually the experience would be unsatisfying and would not be the same experience even if every if it was an exact replica of existence.

Would I reply on a message board that was made up of AI bots and not some other humans? The replies would be probably more challenging and would would be perfectly tailored to my wants and needs but ultimately it would be unsatisfying as there is no connection. I have no idea if anyone on here is "real" but I'm convinced you are.
Then again, evolution has made us very adaptable so within a week the machine may be our new reality.

How does it not engage? I'm not sure what you mean.

There is little joined up thinking after 13 years of Tory Government and very much a hands off approach to food industry and the giant companies feeding people utter rubbish.
No idea how to tackle any of it but initiatives need to be piloted and then rolled out.
A simple example would be youth clubs and crime. I am fairly sure ever £1 spent on youth clubs and facilities/sports etc would save many times the investment on reduction on court system/prisons and mental health issues
Subsidising healthy food and taxing rubbish would help with long term health.
However, people need to make choices and we as a society have to make the better choices similar but we also need to expect people to up their game and stop be unfit and obese.
The NHS has been in crisis for as long as I can remember.

Isn't our experience just cascading neurons? (I love the phrase, I think I first read it in Self Illusion by Bruce Hood)
If a machine could replicate exactly the pathways we would not know it was a simulation.
However, we do have a part of the brain that detects fakeness (No idea of where it is and where I read about it) so any machine that you aware was a machine would ultimately fail because you would "know" it was a fake and discount the experience.

To live good, you need to treat yourself good.
To treat yourself good, treat the world good — Shamshir

What does that mean?

It seems, ergo, that climate change is the "opportune" moment for the development of a more expansive morality that not only includes all of humanity but also other species, even plants — TheMadFool

I take your points about the definition. I am still a little sceptical about the science and modelling but I'm convinced that we have already trashed the planet.

I agree that we need a more expansive morality but how will this manifest itself? What actions will come from the new morality?
,

Enjoy and do whatever good you can. — Shamshir

Why? For what purpose?

This is what I have a problem with. The good bit not the enjoy bit.