The presumption, in , seems to be that transitioning does not treat gender dysphoria.

That is, from what I have seen, factually incorrect. Meta-studies are readily available to justify this position.

Note that we have moved to empirical studies, rather then considering conceptual issues. We are no longer doing philosophy.

Only in that I'm here when I could be setting more seed trays. But I like doing both, and think I've a reasonable balance. Wife might disagree.

, yep.

DO you find it interesting how ubiquitous and indelible the idea of deficit is?

The critique of social contract dogma is particularly salient:

People with disabilities may not be free or independent; and those with severe mental disabilities may be unequal. Nussbaum argues that such people should nevertheless be considered full citizens entitled to dignified lives, even if no one could gain from cooperating with them. She notes that the social contract tradition has always denied the reality of dependency, despite the obvious fact that everyone is dependent on others during infancy, old age, injury, and illness. Historically women have done most of the largely unpaid work of caring for dependents, so by ignoring women, the social contract theorists conveniently evaded the thorny issue of justice for dependents and caregivers. Nussbaum argues that justice for people with disabilities should include whatever special arrangements are required for them to lead a dignified life, and the work of caring for them should be socially recognized, fairly distributed, and fairly compensated. — Jean Chambers

...impairments... — Moliere

Why not just that some folk dance on their legs, others in their chair?

Note that this removes the impairment?

Hence, re-focus on capabilities.

That view is expounded by Nussbaum in a discussion of disability, in Frontiers of Justice. Taht;s a link to a review you might find interesting. It's an Aristotelian approach...

But quite unlike those Aristotelian approaches usually seen in these fora.

I know you are joking and are reflecting upon years of participation. — Paine

....yesss....

....joking....

:fear:

But I don't thoroughly understand either or metaphysical. — Ludwig V

Good, since it is a topic of ongoing discussion. Just not much in the way @Metaphysician Undercover suggests.

If there were enough interest, we might try a discussion on ChatGPT to see what happens.

@Jamal as the pusher man.

I can quite any time I like...

I was looking at the ChatGPT function that allowed group discussions. Within that discussion, a participant can openly ask the AI to explain or to find resources.

Folk treat this as an "authority", but of course any authority here would be granted by the participants, not presumed. That is, if you disagree with the AI's response, then you could openly ask it for an alternate response, to ground your objection.

Might this serve to excrete the bullshit from a discussion? Perhaps. It might be interesting to try.

See Reframing disability

It's worth noting that the notion of "disability" as a class is relatively recent.

Osteological studies of Scottish soldiers from the Battle of Dunbar 1650, and The York 113, show that amongst the common soldiery were folk who would now be considered disabled. The presence of individuals with health stress or impairments did not exclude them from being enlisted or captured as soldiers; they were treated as ordinary foot-soldiers, and thrown into the same grave. Their impairment did not exclude them from participation in the social exercise of making war.

Disability is not a natural kind, but a social classification, perhaps a creation of the welfare state. The historical evidence indicates that impairment alone does not create disability. Treating disability as an economic category is a recent development. Disability is like property, citizenship and marriage.

What might stand is a re-focusing away from what is "normal" and towards accomodation, towards what folk are capable of. Variation is normal.

The claim is that in order for you to be conscious of anything at all, that consciousness must have a felt quality. — hypericin

Again, what is "having a felt quality", if not "being conscious of a feeling"?

Have you said anything more than that being conscious is being conscious?

Seems to me that such an approach seems profound, seems to be providing an explanation, until one looks closely.

I would argue that qualia is the bedrock of sentience. — hypericin

Here's the same thing again; to be sentient is to perceive or feel; and saying "qualia is the bedrock of sentience" sounds cool, as if "Ah! Now we know! it's qualia that explain consciousness!"

But look again. Qualia are perceptions and feelings. so "qualia is the bedrock of sentience" just says "perceptions and feelings are the bedrock of sentience"...

The feeling of having an explanation dissolves... We've just said the same thing with different words.

...as much as people perceiving another person as somehow "contributing" — Moliere

Spot on!

And the presumption is, as often as not, that the disabled do not contribute.

But if you can't get up the stairs in order to pay your taxes... are you to blame?

An example. In “False Economy: The Economic Benefits of the NDIS and the Consequences of Government Cost-Cutting" the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the main support for folk with a disability Dow Nunder, the scheme was shown to have a multiplier effect of 2.25, meaning for every dollar spent on NDIS supports, about A$ 2.25 in economic value is generated across the economy.

Now the figure is disputed - but even if such a scheme only break even, should it not be implemented? Doesn't it make the nation better?

And let's question the presumption of deficit.

Yes - that's pretty much correct. The actual world is the one we are in, and it might have been any of the possible worlds. There is no modal difference between the actual world and the other possible worlds... That'll confuse Meta no end.

Because the difference is not modal. It's metaphysical.

And Meta, as I've pointed out, has failed to see this distinction.

I don't understand why guilt is an appropriate response to some else's' disability. Looks to be another case of re-centring - making it about the able bodied instead of the disabled. Odd.

I guess my question is what might you propose the best response to the disabled would be if there are some well intentioned faux pas occuring? — Hanover

To listen.

It’s just a plain fact that one’s capacity is diminished by his disability, so in my mind the able-bodied ought not be blamed for it. — NOS4A2

Blamed?

Those who do not pay taxes are a burden?

Like these companies?

:wink:

The wheelchair user is also incapacitated by being unable to dance, and that can not be ameliorated. — J

Far from the same thing?

So here's another thing about disability: being told what is possible by the able-bodied. Presumption. As opposed to being allowed to explore what is possible; the capabilities approach.

Stairs take less space than ramps. Seems to be their sole advantage. The presumption is that the facilities at the top of the stair will only be used by the able bodied, or that it's up to the chair user to solve the problem.

Yes, that is a social response. an area is made unavailable to a group of people by choice.

Your obsessed with definitions. I've explained what possible worlds are and how the actual wold is a possible world. If there is a problem set it out. The view I've set out it quite standard. If you see it as problematic, set out how.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. A few interesting things are happening here.

The most obvious is the prominence of the deficit model, in various guises.

The idea that disabilities need fixing.

The idea that a person with a disability cannot pay their way and will require more than they could provide.

And the related way that the focus moved so quickly from disability to care, to re-centring on the able bodied.

Offered as something for consideration, not as a negative. Why did this happen? is it justifiable? How?

duty calls. — Wayfarer

Give her my regards... :wink:

I would like to think that the sentience of beings other than human is not something for us to decide. — Wayfarer

The applicability of the word "sentience" is something for us to decide.

What counts as being sentient?

Doesn't the answer simply depend on what we count as being sentient? That is, it's something to be decided , not discovered?

To be aware of anything at all, there must be something it is like to have that awareness. — hypericin

Why? And what, exactly, is the claim here?

As if there were one thing that "it is like" to be aware that your toe hurts, to be aware that the sun is out, and to be aware that Paris is in France.

No, these have nothing in common. There need be no "something it is like" that makes them all cases of "awareness".

Ok, cheers.

Might be a lost opportunity, but I'm not up on the detail. Or cost.

Maybe, in the forum after the next, it will be considered the norm.

Thanks for the reply. Seems pretty minimalist.

Summaries and semantic search look helpful. How the AI bot fits will depend on how it is implemented and how powerful it is.

The main point Banno seems to be making here is there is a clear difference between stating something is logically true and making a judgement call. Ironically he agrees with Jordan Peterson here, — I like sushi

:wink:

The difference between a fact and a value has a longer history than eve that, and Peterson, for all his faults, may have some idea of what Hume had to say.

If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena. — I like sushi

I'm not sure if this was a view you were attributing to someone else, or were advocating yourself.

Might be worth clarifying.

:brow:

I was quoting your reply to Outlander not AmadeusD. — Philosophim

What you think your point is, I have been unable to make out.


You are under no obligation to reply to me.


Who did I invite to the thread?

Nice.

What happened to your claim that words don't have essential meaning Banno? — Philosophim

That meanings need not be essential does not imply that words do not have any meaning.

He can't possibly be conflating anything then. — Philosophim

He said:

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness. — AmadeusD

Looks pretty clear. Most trans people have a mental illness.

You might consider what it is you are defending.

Amadeus is like a magic eight ball. When he gets shook up he will just say shit. Most of it doesn't stick. I don't waste my time on them anymore. — I like sushi

:smile:

You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment...

, , you both presume an adversarial model of discourse. Now fun as that is, it might be interesting to explore other possibilities...

Fine. I can see a benefit in making the AI's input explicit rather than covert. Lets's see what Jamal's thoughts are.

So you are happy to conflate transgender with gender dysphoria.

And to support that with pop scientism.

Ok. Thanks for your reply.

Am I way off track? — frank

Perhaps not.

I keep coming back to language being inherently social. It follows that an explanation solely in terms of an individual's brain or cognition or whatever must be insufficient.

So that part of what you suggest must be correct.

:rofl:

:up:


Exactly.

Discourse announces an AI Assistant for using their software

@Jamal, any plans for the use of AI in our new home?

Here's an answer to the conundrum - integrate the AI into the chat. — Banno

Rather than worrying about how much of a post is generated by AI, it might be useful to have the AI as a participant in the forum, so that the sort of questions at which it excels can be asked and answered quite openly.

Cool.

Now, what does it have to do with first and third person? And can we do it without qualia?