Gender "refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time." — Michael

Which is to say that gender as a social construction is sexism. Which also means that to change gender, or to be gender fluid, would mean you would need to travel to different cultures or through time.

And children identify as belonging to one gender or another at this very young age, most often before they have any understanding of biological sex. — Michael

How do they identify with one gender or another when gender is a social construction? Wouldn't it be society that determines their gender?

Should transgender men who have had genital surgery use the men's bathroom or the women's bathroom?

You have two very simple answers to choose from, so just choose. Stop with the tiresome deflection. — Michael

Talk about hypocrisy. I'm not deflecting. You are as well as cherry-picking. If gender is a social construction them having genital surgery has nothing to do with gender. You keep conflating the two. Using one particular bathroom or the other does not affirm one's gender, so I don' know why you keep bringing up genital surgery in a thread about gender as a social, sexist construct.

They're not firing the same neurons. — Michael

Ok, Michael the Eliminative Materialst.

I agree. This principle is compatible to mine. There is always at least one option, so the will is not entirely unfree. And the number of options is limited, so the will is never entirely free. So it's not a binary yes-no-question as to whether the will is free or unfree; — Quk

That's why I spoke about freedom in degrees - as in more options the more freedom. I would say that having only one option isn't an option. An option is a relation between two or more responses. To have an option means you must have an alternative response that you can run through the algorithm and compare the predicted outcomes and choose which outcome one prefers.

Now that's the specific freedom regarding the options. I think there's another specific freedom which refers to the causes and reasons that influence my decisions. I'd say, this specific freedom doesn't provide a free will since I'm always influenced by something that is not part of my Self. — Quk

Interesting. So do other selves have an influence on you and you on them? How does one claim that others have an influence on others if the selves are themselves some nebulous and vague concept that only exists as a result of "external" forces?

What is property? The concept doesn't exist in nature; — Vera Mont

Most sentient organisms. Grass, not so much, although it can be 'invade' the artificial domains of mankind. — Vera Mont

I other words the concept does exist in nature. Mankind is a natural outcome of natural processes. Everything humans do is natural for them, which includes staking one's territory.

Defending one's home, feeding grounds and cache of winter supplies against rivals and enemies is not much like holding the deed to an estate - or ten estates - stocks and bank accounts, a vault full of fur coats, pictures and diamonds to which the government is expected to guarantee your absolute right, including the maintenance of legal institutions in which to squabble with one's mate over them. — Vera Mont

But it is like a nation using it's might to protect it's territory. Why wouldn't the same concept hold true for individuals too?

Of course it has nothing to do with ideology: they believe in nothing but self-enrichment, self-aggrandizement. They just proclaim that it is in order to get people to obey them. I agree that Peterson was an inappropriate inclusion. So, could you please name two of the contemporary examples from the American left who are equal to them in self-centered manipulativism? — Vera Mont

There are many to choose from. The fact that you are asking me just shows the scope of your bias. Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and all those that kept Biden's condition from the American people as well as those that manipulated the Democratic primary in 2016 sidelining Bernie Sanders. The fact that I need to point these things out to you just shows how easy it is to forget the bad behavior of your own side.

The only reason one would continue to support one side or the other would be because of some emotional investment they have in supporting the party. Political parties employ group-think and group-hate. People would much rather blame people they never met or spoke to for their problems.

Institutions inherently allow individuals to do what their fellow men on a level playing field would not. — Vera Mont

Not always. Competition is what allows a level playing field, not using government to artificially prop up one group or another, or one institution or another.

That's pretty much the point. Institutions brought them fortune, power and fame and they're busily attacking and tearing down those institutions, in order to deprive other people of the protection they offer. — Vera Mont

It seems to me that Musk and Trump have created their own institutions. Do institutions inherently endow individuals with fortune, power and fame? Which ones do and which ones don't typically have much to do with one's political persuasions but with favoritism and nepotism.

What you are describing here looks like an algorithm to me. So your comment here isn't so much different to mine — Quk

Exactly. So isn't the algorithm (thought process) the difference in output here? It is the reason we have a difference in how many people respond differently to hearing the same speech.

I am a Libertarian, but my concept of "free will" is probably different than most. To me, freedom = options and will = central executive. The more options one has, the more freedom one has. And you only get more options by having more information - by being informed, and not living in a bubble.

In having more options means that your central executive can make more informed decisions.

So it would be in a Libertarian's best interest to educate the rest of society in critical thinking and encouraging questioning and criticizing authority that tries to limit our options by limiting our access to all information.

We focus on three figures: Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Jordan Peterson. — Moliere

Your focus is biased. There are plenty on the left that are just as self-centered and manipulative. It has nothing to do with political ideology.

What is property? The concept doesn't exist in nature; — Vera Mont

You obviously know nothing about nature. Most organisms are territorial.

Yet again with the equivocation.

You are correct to say that the transgender man is not a biological man but you are incorrect to suggest that the transgender man believes himself to be a biological man. So your claim that he suffers from a delusion stems from a fallacy. — Michael

The point is that they think that they are a type of man. I have been asking you what type of man do they think they are? You might say trans-man, but what does that mean? How is a trans-man different than a biological one - specifically. We keep going in circles because you fail to provide a specific example of what it means to be a sociological-man or psychological-man (even though psychology is rooted in biology), as opposed to a biological man.

I don't quite understand your question. Are you suggesting that 3 year olds do in fact know that some of the children in their class have a penis and some have a vagina, and that this biological difference dictates social differences? Or are you suggesting that 3 year olds don't understand that some of the children in their class are called "boys" and some are called "girls", and that those who are called "boys" and those who are called "girls" tend to wear different clothes and play with different toys and are referred to using different pronouns? — Michael

I'm not suggesting anything. I am taking your own suggestions as if they are true and trying to reconcile them because they are contradictory.

Sure, children can form a concept that gender is based solely on what one wears and the pronouns that are used to refer to others, but then they would only be getting part of the story. This would be like a child hearing a curse word and then using it without a full understanding of how and when it should be used.

Why do some people wear dresses and why do some wear pants? Children are curious (I'll show you mine if you show me yours). They will eventually figure it out.

It doesn’t matter what you call it. Which bathroom should the transgender man who has had genital surgery use? The women's bathroom or the men's bathroom? Given that you mentioned sex parts to explain why we have separate bathrooms for men and women it’s a pertinent question. — Michael

You're the one denying something from entering a bathroom based on whether that something is artificial or not.

I think so too -- almost. I don't think the processes are 100 % deterministic as they are accompanied by a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations. A tiny random electron path deviation may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later. I'm not saying our brain is pure chaos. Obviously, it's not. But it's not a plain deterministic computer program or formula book either. — Quk

You don't even seem to be aware that you are supporting non-random determinism in explaining how differences in causes (a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations, a tiny random electron path deviation, etc.) can lead to different effects (may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later).

Reason and cause are two different things.

• Reason is a logical condition.

• Cause is an event along a timeline. — Quk

Reason is a type of cause. One could just as well say that a cause is a logical condition as well. Reasoning is an event along a timeline that precedes the conclusion as well as supports the existence of the conclusion.

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°. For this there is a reason, not a cause. The reason is independent of time and events. It's not a story. — Quk

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180° is the conclusion of measuring the angles of a multiple triangles. If you never measured the angles of a triangle, then how can you even say that the sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°?

Rain makes the road wet. Rain occurs, then wetness occurs. This is a story. Rain
causes wetness. Rain is not a reason; rain is a cause. — Quk

One could just as easily say that the road is wet because it has rained. A conclusion supported by a reason.

In making a distinction between causes and reasons is to contribute the the dualist's mind-body problem.

Do you hear sounds, or simply experience neurons firing?
— Harry Hindu

Hearing a sound is the firing of certain neurons. — Michael

Then how do you determine the differences in some sounds if they are all just firing the same neurons?
You're relying to much on Wikipedia to the point where you are failing to think for yourself.

The idea speech does not affect the world and that all these sovereign individuals can just ignore it, is devoid of fact. Speech can be abusive and cause harm. Child abuse can consist of solely verbal abuse. There are plenty of examples of bullied kids committing suicide. To then have people argue words don't harm and that it is apparently the person's choice to commit suicide is a prime example of victim blaming. — Benkei

No one is saying that speech cannot affect the world. What we are saying is that there are often times where there are other more immediate causes to one's actions than hearing some sounds made my someone's mouth.

Consciousness is like steam rising from a train—generated by the engine but doing no work of its own. — tom111

I would say that the steam has the potential to do work if it were to come into contact with something else. At the very least the steam would merge with the water vapor in the air and become part of the air we breath. Everything is a causal process, including the mind. The relationship between causes and their effects is information.

But this harmony makes no sense under epiphenomenalism. If consciousness cannot influence behavior, then there’s no reason for our experiences to be useful, well-calibrated, or even coherent. — tom111

Exactly. Is consciousness like eye color in that it is just a by-product of accumulated mutations that have no beneficial or detrimental effects on survival? Eye color could play a roll in sexual selection as some might prefer a certain eye color in a mate. It seems to me that many of us select mates that match, or add to our mental lives as well. One might add that we also select mates based on their mental states as well.

If we were to explore what makes consciousness useful I would point to learning. Whenever we learn something we are fully conscious of what it is we are doing. When learning to walk or ride a bike, you are fully conscious of every movement of your feet, legs, balance, etc. Your attention is focused on these things and the effect it has on walking or riding a bike successfully and efficiently. You observe how others do it and try to duplicate the action and then observe the effect and repeat until you eventually get it right. After that the task of walking and riding a bike is handled subconsciously, You no longer have to focus your attention on the task of walking or riding a bike, which is why you can focus on other things while doing these things. It's as if consciousness is training the brain and muscles what to do so they can handle the task on their own in the future so that the conscious mind can tend to other, more important things.

I would add that the notion of what it means to be "physical" is a mental abstraction. The brain processes sensory information at a certain rate relative to the rate of external processes that it observes. This will have an effect on how we perceived certain processes compared to other processes. Slow processes would appear as static "objects" and what we tend to think as physical. Faster processes will be perceived as actual processes and even faster processes might not be perceived at all, or as blurs of motion. The point is that a physicalist is confusing the map with the territory and trying to reconcile the "physical", static, solid object of the brain they perceive with the "non-physical" (dynamic and unbounded) aspect of the mind. The brain is not a physical object. It is a process and consciousness is a sub-process of the brain.

Then let's try to keep it simple.

Are you a compatibilist or an incompatibilist? If you are an incompatibilist then do you believe that we have libertarian free will or do you believe that we don't have free will? If you believe that we have libertarian free will then do you believe in interactionist dualism? — Michael

How is that keeping things simple? What's with all the labels?

Just answer the question about what happens when you hear some sound. Do you hear sounds, or simply experience neurons firing?

According to Kant, causality is just a category of our reason that enables our perception. This theses may be wrong, but it sounds pretty plausible to me.) — Quk

Then Kant didn't have reasons for his conclusions? It seems to me that thinking is inherently a causal process. This just pulls the rug out from under the premise that sounds cause certain behaviors in others, like rioting. By asserting that causation is an illusion of the mind means that we can't be sure that some speech caused some behavior.

I could show you a sample algorithm of a decision process that leads to the acceptance of an incitement. But that sample would be beyond the scope now and tedious. I just want to say, that there's more involved than just an abstract thought process. There are special tastes and certain emotions and individual temperaments. A flat earther, for example, cannot be convinced by rational arguments. Flat earthers insist on their dogma because it's an emotional conviction. Ratio cannot beat emotion. Similarly, certain tastes are open to certain offerings. "Thought processes" are just a part of the game. — Quk

I was asking for something much simpler - and you keep avoiding it. I'm not asking for a sample algorithm. I'm simply asking you for you to explain the process of how you interpret political speech.

I'm a-political, so when I hear political speech I don't accept it at face value, no matter which side of the political spectrum it is coming from. I do research. I listen to what others of varying political persuasions say and then form my opinion about the veracity of what was originally said. I do these things because of my learned history that politicians and those persuaded by them lie. Notice I'm taking about experiences and memories and how they integrate with what is heard or read in the present moment. I don't experience neurons firing and hormones raging when I integrate sensory data with my stored memories. I experience colors, shapes, (of which neurons and brains are composed of and is what we are referring to when we talking about brains and neurons) sounds, feelings, etc.

What you refer to as abstract, I refer to as fundamental. Objects like brains and neurons are the abstraction as everything is process. These eliminative materialists like to talk about brains and neurons without acknowledging that they are using their mind to view them and they are referring to how they appear in the mind. It's like they're saying that the view through the window is true, but the window does not exist.

I didn't ask about your brain. I asked about your thought process
— Harry Hindu

Are they different? As I've mentioned several times, I am assuming that eliminative materialism is correct because NOS4A2 endorses eliminative materialism, and I am arguing with him. — Michael

You're arguing with me as well that does not assume that eliminative materialism is correct, so you're talking past me. NOS4A2 and I don't exactly share the same views when it comes to the reality of minds, so it would seem to me that an eliminative materialist would have a problem in explaining how there are different reactions to the same stimulus if you don't account for the working memory of the mind where sensory information is interpreted.

No the brain and a thought process are not the same thing. A thought process is one of the functions of the brain. The brain also regulates body temperature, hormone levels in the blood stream, etc. So I'm talking about a specific process the brain performs.

Everything that exists – including the "mind" – is physical. Human behaviour and "decision-making" is ultimately reducible to the movements of matter and energy according to natural, causal laws. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of the neurons in my brain. And the neurons in my brain behave the way they do because they were caused to do so by other neurons and (sometimes) electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of my sense organs. And the sense organs behave the way they do because they reacted to some external stimulus like light or sound.

There's no immaterial thing like a soul that interferes with the natural behaviour of the physical matter that constitutes my body. — Michael

You're the one that keeps using terms like "material", "physical" and "immaterial", not me. I don't see any use for them. The world is neither physical or non-physical. The mind is neither physical or non-physical. Everything is process-relationships-information. So we're obviously not going to come to some agreement about free speech if we can't agree on the fundamentals of reality and the relationship between mind and world.

The personality of individuals varies a lot; it consists of many attributes, for example:
• Egoism -- ranging from low to high
• Credulity -- ranging from low to high
• Narcissism -- ranging from low to high
• Social intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Emotional intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Mathematical intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Experience -- having learned from various specific stories
• Political taste -- ranging from right to left, and vertically from liberal to authoritarian
... and a zillion other attributes, scalable from low to high, from down to up.

A certain mix setting within a personality determines or causes a certain reaction; a reaction to certain inciting words or certain invitations or inspirations etc. pp.
— Quk

This is moving the conversation forward at least - something that seems adverse to.

Some people choose to live in a bubble and in doing so cut themselves off from alternate forms of information, or views. As a result, they end up being easily manipulated.

So, I asked you to take us readers through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words. How do these different things come into play for you, personally, when hearing any words? Why is it so difficult for you or to do this? Either you're p-zombies and have no idea what I'm talking about when I use the words, "thoughts", or you are being intellectually dishonest. Would it help if I went through my own thought process when hearing some words? I would, but I just need to know whether or not you're a p-zombie so I don't waste my time with my example, as you would never hope to understand it - if you're a p-zombie.

(But I'm not saying that everything is determined; I think that are random effects as well.) — Quk

Everything is determined and "random" is just a term that stems from our ignorance of the causal process that preceded some effect.

Different brains respond differently to the same stimulus.

Much like not every computer displays the letter "A" on the screen when you press the "A" key. — Michael

I didn't ask about your brain. I asked about your thought process, or are you a p-zombie?

The difference in take away messaging from the same message, at the same meeting, was astounding. To this day I have no idea how I should have phrased the message for equivalent positive uptake throughout the staff. That the take away was so immensely different still bewilders me. — Book273

I like to use the analogy of two cats. One cat has been a pet of mine for years and another is a stray I only recently adopted. When I use the electric can-opener to open a can of tuna, the pet cat comes running toward the sound. The stray runs away from the sound and only learns that the sound means tuna is being served after several instances of this happening. How can two entities of any species react so differently to the same sound and then change when new information is introduced (tuna is being served rather than something loud and dangerous is coming)?

Some reactions are common, some reactions are individual.

Every human likes to breath. Not every human likes garlic.

Isn't it that simple? — Quk

Only if you're interested in effects divorced from their causes. Why doesn't every human like garlic?

Going by what some are saying in this thread, everyone that hears that garlic is delicious and nutritious should be eating garlic. But they don't. Why?

Why doesn't every human that hears inciting words participate in a riot?

If you hear inciting words and are not incited to riot, then why don't you or take us through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words and why you don't end up rioting?

The physical differences between two different human bodies and two different human brains. Refer back to my example of the computers. Some computers might respond to someone pressing the "A" key by displaying the letter "A" on the screen, some might emit a noise, and some might do something else.

A human organism and a computer might each be constituted of different molecules, but these molecules obey the same physical laws regarding cause and effect. — Michael

Then I don't see anything that has actually contradicted what I have said.

For computers to respond differently to the same input must mean that they are programmed differently.

For a human to respond differently to the same input must mean they were raised differently.

Those "physical" laws you speak of also say that different causes lead to different effects.

So thanks for agreeing with me.

If eliminative materialsm is correct then there's nothing like an immaterial soul or mind to interfere with these (deterministic) physical processes. — Michael

What made you think that I was proposing the existence of a soul? Nor am I speaking as an eliminative materialist. I am simply speaking as a determinist. I do believe minds exist by default as that is the only thing I know exists, so if you're saying eliminative materialsm requires that minds do not exist, then I am saying eliminative materialsm is wrong, but not necessarily that determinism is wrong.

Minds are as much a deterministic process as everything else. We have reasons for what we do -whether consciously or instinctively. The difference is the the way we interpret the input. So you can continue talking past me about neurons and molecules, while I am talking about what the billions of neurons and molecules are doing together - and that is interpreting sensory data.

From a strictly deterministic stance, how does the determinist account for the difference in output given the same input? A scientist would attempt to explain the discrepancy by explaining a process in-between that modifies the output given the same input. It must be that the input is being integrated with the information stored within the system, which is different for each system, that produces the different outputs, not the inputs themselves.

On rigid designators, what does it mean for an object in one possible world to be the same object as an object in a different possible world? Is it simply a stipulation? — Michael

I guess it depends on what one means by "world". If it's not a known world (or universe or dimension if that is what they mean by "world"), then it must be imaginary. All the other worlds we know of in our Solar System possess many of the same characteristics as our world. They have mountains, rocks, atmospheres, moons, etc. - these things exist on our world and other worlds in the same way. A mountain is a mountain on both Earth and Mars. Both worlds have things that match the description of a mountain.

I'm not saying anything about materialism or physicalism because I don't support either but neither am I an idealist or panpsychist. I simply accept that determinism is the case.

For determinism to be true means that when the same input goes in but you get a different output, something in-between is interpreting the input differently than in other cases. That is what I'm trying to focus on - what that difference is. I'm not denying determinism is true. I'm saying that if it is true, then there must be some difference in the way the two humans interpret the same input to be able to produce a different output. "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity", is what a determinist would say. They would also say, "If you're doing something repeatedly and you get different outcomes, then you're not really doing the same thing over and over. Something different is happening."

If eliminative materialism is correct, then yes. What we call "the mind" and "mental processes" are reducible to some physical process. — Michael

Ok. So what I'm saying is that deterministic processes are not necessarily physical (whatever that means).


Whether it is physical (whatever that means) or not is irrelevant. It is the reason behind the differences in how people react to the same stimulus.

Say we both buy the same computer brand and model. Once we get home we install software on the computer. The software I install is going to be different than what you install. The data I store on mine will be different than what is on yours. As a result both computers, even though they are the same make and model and we interact with the computer the same way - via keyboard and mouse, both computers are going to function differently because of the software and data - the information stored within it.

Your response is an example of talking past each other.

You're the one using terms like "physical". Not me. Is information physical?

I constantly have to repeat myself with you:

Maybe it has something to do with the information stored in their brains. — Harry Hindu

Suppose there was no written language. And let's say the idea occurred to me. Why can't we represent the things we talk about visually, instead of audibly? No alphabets exist. How would I go about it? It's possible I would make symbols that represent the things I want to communicate to the reader (not that the word "reader" would exist yet). Simple drawings when possible. Likely also many symbols whose resemblance to what they are supposed to represent is not always terribly obvious. — Patterner

Why would you feel the need to represent things that you already observe and if some reader/listener doesn't exist yet? The whole point of representing things in the world is to communicate with others. If there are no others, then why would you feel the need to represent things - for who, or for what purpose?

I know that in a few billion years the Sun will expand and consume the Earth.

Not really sure how to make use of this information, but I know it all the same. — Michael

Information is everywhere causes leave effects. Which information is relevant is dependent upon the present goal in the mind. If you had the goal to ensure the human race continues to exist beyond the Earth being consumed by the Sun you might start building and testing rockets to make humanity a multi-planetary, or multi-solar system species.

Slightly different biologies. Your eyes are not identical to my eyes and your brain is not identical to my brain. — Michael

Yet people with different eyes and different brains respond similarly and sometimes not, so you haven't yet accounted for the difference in why some people are influenced by some speech and not others. Maybe it has something to do with the information stored in their brains.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender-diverse people. It's a distinct concept from biological sex, which refers to physical attributes like chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender is a social construct, meaning it's created and shaped by society and culture, with norms and expectations varying across time and different societies. — prothero

Which means that an individual's gender is determined by society, not by the individual like sex is.

Do you deny that there are social differences between men and women, independent of their karyotype and genitals? Are we are gender-blind outside of reproduction and reproductive health? — Michael

Yes because in speaking of social differences, we are speaking about differences in societies. When speaking about differences between a man and a woman, we are speaking about biological differences. To conflate the two would be practicing sexism.

Androids aren't people, they're machines. — Michael

If an artificial human isn't a human then artificial penises aren't penises.

What if a woman has a dildo (an artificial penis) in her purse - does she get to use the men's restroom?

Some dude who just woke up one day wanting different body parts for no logical reason, that's just not something that needs to be taken seriously.
— Outlander

It's also not something that actually happens. — Michael

Yet you say that there is no specific example of expressing one's gender:

It doesn't show anything specific, which is what I'm asking for.
— Harry Hindu

Because there is no specific thing. — Michael

You are the one that has created the circumstances of gender being this open-ended thing that can mean anything - as long as it's not sex, so it isn't a straw-man until you provide some concrete examples.

Martin and Ruble conceptualize this process of development as three stages: (1) as toddlers and pre-schoolers, children learn about defined characteristics, which are socialized aspects of gender; (2) around the ages of five to seven years, identity is consolidated and becomes rigid; (3) after this "peak of rigidity", fluidity returns and socially defined gender roles relax somewhat. Barbara Newmann breaks it down into four parts: (1) understanding the concept of gender, (2) learning gender role standards and stereotypes, (3) identifying with parents, and (4) forming gender preference.

How is 1) achieved if

In the very early years of human development – and in particular at a time when we're unlikely to even be aware of sex organs different from our own — Michael

?
If gender as social expectations of the sexes is determined by sex and we aren't aware of other sex organs, then how can we learn the characteristics of gender at an early age? How does a toddler learn why some people where dresses and some wear pants if they aren't aware of other sex organs?

You can't even stay consistent with your own arguments (oh wait, I forget, they are the scientists' arguments and scientists are prophets from on high and should never be questioned -which is how you distance yourself from your own contradictions).

So what does the transgender man falsely believe himself to be? — Michael

That they are a man. Why else would they be calling themselves a man? And yes, many trans-gender people do not like the trans- qualifier. They actually consider themselves a man or a woman.

Free speech absolutism clings to a libertarian ahistorical fantasy: — Benkei

Said by someone with a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be a libertarian.

A libertarian is not "every person for themselves" or "everyone can do whatever they want". That is anarchy, not libertarianism.

A libertarian understands that the right to do what they want stops when what they are doing infringes on the rights of others.

My free speech stops when it infringes on your rights, so threatening bodily harm is not speech a libertarian would support.

Free speech is not "Anyone can say whatever they want without repercussions", because other people have the same right to say what they want, which means they can disagree and criticize what others say - especially what people in positions of authority say.

So instances where people were manipulated by someone else's speech is where the people manipulated did not have the capacity to question or criticize what was said, or they were not manipulated at all and already had hate within them that they were waiting to use any excuse to unleash.

Light, sound, smells, etc. The very fact that we sense and respond to the external world is only possible because the external world causally influences us. — Michael

Yes, but why does each person respond to those same lights, sounds, smells, etc differently?

Yes. Determinism is the inevitable consequence of eliminative materialism. — Michael

Exactly - which means that because people respond to the same lights, sounds, smells, etc. differently there must be some other process between some speech being made and one's actions that manifests as that difference in actions after hearing a speech.

I just want to know if you accept that a transgender man with an artifical penis should use the men's bathroom.

It's a simple "yes" or "no" answer. — Michael

Define "artificial". Which bathroom should an android with an artificial penis use?

I've linked to various articles that explain gender, gender roles, gender expression, and gender identity. Do the reading. — Michael

It doesn't show anything specific, which is what I'm asking for. You were more than happy to provide specific examples of sex. Why so reluctant to show just one example of gender as something non-biological? Sounds like someone with a sex fetish that has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to gender and are just using it as cover for their real intention of being closer to women with their pants down.

I’m not conflating gender with biology. I am simply pointing out that if we separate bathrooms according on one’s sex organs, as you say we should, then it makes sense to allow those with an artificial penis to use the same bathroom as those with a natural penis and to allow those with an artificial vagina to use the same bathroom as those with a natural vagina.

Included in those with artificial genitals are trans people who have had surgery, intersex people who have had surgery, and cisgender people who have had surgery after an unfortunate accident with a buzz saw. — Michael

What if there was an android with an artificial penis, which bathroom should they use? Please don't bring up the slippery slope. YOU are the one that used the term, "artificial", so you should define exactly how you're using it. I'm the one saying it's not any kind of penis, artificial or natural.

No, I'm not. I am simply acknowledging the fact that some transgender people have genital surgery. — Michael

And some people that are not transgender have had genital surgery, as you have pointed out and apparently forgotten. So what does gender status have to do with using the bathroom if gender has nothing to do with biology? Why is it so important that trans people get to use the bathroom rather than the non-trans that have had surgery? It must be because you continue to conflate sex with gender in one moment then claim they are separate in another.

Also, you have been very happy to show specific examples of sex with your use of "penis", "vagina", "testes" etc., but have yet to show ONE specific example of gender as something social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral.

According to this, 25-50% of transgender men have genital surgery and 4-13% of transgender women have genital surgery. — Michael

Thanks for supporting my argument that the number of trans-people that conflate sex and gender are growing and you're just parroting this conflation (delusion).

No they're not. The transgender woman is fully aware that she is biologically male and the transgender man is fully aware that he is biologically female. — Michael

Aren't they saying they are psychologically and culturally male/female? Isn't that the point of contention here? I'm still waiting on specific examples.

Can someone be non-biologically female male? If not, then why the qualifier, "biological"? If so, then please provide a specific example.

There's no list of necessary and sufficient conditions. — Michael

Which is to say gender is anything other than sex. Gender = not-sex. That's helpful. :roll:


.

And what about trans people who have had genital surgery? — Michael

Your conflating sex and gender again. If I said that intersex people can use whichever bathroom they want, then why would their gender status matter - if sex and gender are separate?

In most cases one's gender is determined by one's sex, but given the existence of transgender people – and societies with more than two genders – this is not a necessity. — Michael

By having genital surgery the trans-person is asserting their gender is determined by their sex.

Now, what about trans people that haven't had surgery? Which bathroom should they use? And what are they saying determines their gender - which social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects are they referring to - specifically?

Because that’s what we were both discussing. You said "we separate bathrooms by sex because it is an area where we uncover our sex parts."

I just want to understand how artificial sex parts factor into your separation. — Michael

I already said that intersex people can use whatever bathroom they want. People that have had genital surgery are effectively intersex because they still retain some of the sex parts they were born with.

So, just to be clear, in talking about people that have had genital surgery, we're talking about intersex people, not trans-gendered people.

It’s a very simple question, Harry. If you are in charge of deciding who is allowed to use which bathroom, then would you require that trans men who have had genital surgery and now have an artificial penis use the men’s bathroom or the women’s bathroom? — Michael

You see, you are the one going on about bathrooms when I'm talking about the relationship between gender and sex. You're putting the cart before the horse.

I’m not.

You claimed that the reason we have separate bathrooms for men and women is because men and women have different sex organs. And it is a simple fact that some trans people have genital surgery. So I’m asking you which bathroom they should use after having genital surgery. — Michael

You are.

You are contradicting yourself. If gender and sex are separate then why would genital surgery be called gender-affirming?

I’m simply pointing out that if we divide bathrooms by sex organs then it makes sense to allow trans men who have had surgery to use the men’s bathroom and trans women who have had surgery to use the women’s bathroom. — Michael

If you're not conflating gender and sex then why are you calling people who modified their sexual biology trans-gender?

In proposing unisex bathrooms you are taking away the trans-gender person's reasons for having surgery in the first place - to affirm their gender.