Irrelevant. What needs to be proven here is if a man can be a woman.

There are probably more men assaulting women. What are the statistics on men assaulting women in bathrooms? — frank

I'm not sure as men have mostly been kept out of women's bathrooms so it would logically follow that most assaults on women occurred outside of the bathroom. By allowing men into women's safe spaces, the assaults in bathrooms undoubtedly will go up.

But none of this actually addresses the actual issue in that some in this thread are advocating that men should be able to enter a woman's bathroom or locker room based on the fallacious and incoherent idea that men can be women. Can men be women and vice versa?

What are the statistics on dwarf on normal-statured people assaults vs men on women assaults?

If I don't feel safe peeing with a dwarf in the room, is the state supposed to do something about that? — frank

That depends on whether your fear is realistic or not (delusional).

Here's a sqip: i

If you take any squip, and put an "i" on it's left side, the result is also a squip.

So since i is a squip, so is ii. and since ii is a squip, so is iii.

You get the idea.

Here's a language game about that language game: Is there a largest squip?

Now, where is the problem? — Banno

That's not a language game. That's a scribble game.

What makes a scribble a word?

Thats good, at least we both believe solipsism is a untenable position. — Richard B

You made solipsism a tenable position by saying things like, "we don't see the world as it is". I'm now asking you how you can then say "solipsism is an untenable position" after saying "we don't see the world as it is". How can you be so sure there is even an external world if you can't trust what your senses are telling you? Do you even have senses?

:roll: of course I can agree with all that (just read my recent posts in other political discussions), but that will take generations to accomplish. A more immediate solution to the trans problem is to start addressing it as what it is - a delusional disorder.

In the present case, it's a matter of having a word to denote a particular concept. If you read the word, it's to your benefit to understand what the word means- there's no control involved. If you get triggered when you see others using the term, that's your problem. If you feel to need to correct others when they use the term in the way you oppose then you are as guilty of trying to control others as anyone. — Relativist

This is so laughable that you cannot see the contradiction in what you just said here.

What you just said can be applied to yourself and the trans-community. So when trans people hear the word "gender" being used a as a synonym for "sex", or pronouns being used to refer to sex, and are triggered, then that is their problem, right? This is just more of the left's "rules for thee, but not for me" (the right is hypocritical in this regard too, so it's more of an extremist tactic to control others to reinforce their delusions).

symptoms of delusional disorder may include:
Feelings of being exploited.
Preoccupation with the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends.
A tendency to read threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.
Persistently holding grudges.
A readiness to respond and react to perceived slights. — Cleveland Clinic

Physical alteration of one's body is presentation. Is biology being changed? Amputation of a leg isn't a change of biology, nor is cosmetic surgery. — Relativist

That is changing one's physiology which is part of one's biology.

The point is that why change your body if gender is a feeling and/or a social construction? If gender is feeling then changing your gender would be changing how you feel. If it were a social construction then changing gender would require changing society, not an individual's body parts.

Not to mention, that they never achieve creating real sex organs so the only thing they could be presenting is a fake version of a man or woman. When the the doctor creates hole between a man's legs as a "vagina" a medical grade dilator has to be used to keep the wound from closing. The body knows what it is, despite what the mind might think.

You're wrong. Consistency is present if a word corresponds to a concept. It's an entirely different matter as to whether or not you (and others) are willing to accept the linguistic shift. But languages evolve all the time. — Relativist

The problem is that this linguistic shift is based on a misunderstanding of other terms as well as contradictory with the rest of what we know. This is typical of religious claims. They end up contradicting other claims they have made, as well as being logically inconsistent in accepting some claims over others when they all have no evidence to support any of them.

Are you saying that women have a right to use the bathroom without biological men in the room? — frank

I'm saying that everyone, including women, has the right to feel safe.

My Master? Yes, I would refuse. Dark Sith Lord? And I knew you had a severe mental compulsion to be called that or it causes you distress? Sure, why not? But you didn't answer my question about pronouns. Do you refuse to call a man her or she? — RogueAI

You didn't answer the most important question on why you would believe a man can be a woman more than a man can be a Sith Lord, or believe in the existence of the Christian god.

As for pronouns - they refer to one's sex, so I will use them to refer to one's sex regardless of what one wishes.

Have you ever called someone a name that they did not identify with - idiot, moron, ass, bigot, racist, sexist, stupid, etc.?

If you're concerned about people's safety, just let trans men use men's bathrooms and trans women use women's bathrooms. — Michael

That's not the issue here. The issue is men that are not trans entering women's bathrooms and locker rooms. The ultimate issue is assuming that extraordinary claims with no evidence are true.

Again, if gender is merely a feeling, then that is all you need to be one gender or the other. The need to use one bathroom or the other would be irrelevant if all that is required is one's feelings to affirm one's gender.

We don't need a scanner to check for inter-sex people entering one bathroom or the other, so the discussion regarding that is irrelevant. Inter-sex people are already using the bathroom they want and their case is so rare that it is a non-issue. The issue is that predator men will use transgenderism as an excuse to enter women's safe spaces.

It would seem to me that the ones that are using people with a mental disorders for political gain are the true haters here. And it is these people that are actually putting everyone in danger, including trans-people, by affirming their delusions, instead of helping them get the proper care they need. This would be like prescribing diet pills to an anorexic instead of providing the proper psychological care they need. The left is not about helping people. They are about using people as a political club against their political opponents.

If a biological male wants you to use "she" and "her" do you refuse? — RogueAI

If I want you to refer to me as, "My Master" because I identify as a Dark Sith Lord, would you refuse?

If not, then it is incumbent upon you to explain the discrepancy. Why do you believe a man can be a woman more than a man can be a Sith Lord? Why do you believe a man can be a woman more than the claim that the Christian-right's God exists?

There is no logical inconsistency in the semantics, if sex is defined as biological and gender is defined as what is presented and (presumably) felt. My sense is that this won't catch on, because many are like you: unwilling to accept the semantics. As I indicated initially, that's the most trivial aspect of the TG issue. — Relativist

There is logical inconsistency in both the semantics AND the acceptance of extraordinary claims with no evidence.

Gender as "what is presented and felt" are biological. Feelings are biological, or more specific - neurological. I'm not sure what "presented" means other than using sexist tropes to "present" oneself as either a male or female.

If gender and sex are separate, then why is changing one's biology an affirmation of one's gender? If presenting and feeling are what define one's gender, then why the need to change the biology and control other's speech? Why the need to enter female spaces - which are divided by sex, not by gender?

The ultimate issue here though is that you and the others here have ASSUMED the claims of people that claim to be a woman when they are a man are true. Not only that, but you are being inconsistent in your acceptance of one claim over another when they both have the same amount of evidence - none. This is no different than how Christians accept the existence of one God over others, when there is the same amount of evidence for the existence of all gods - none.

You don't want to admit this because doing so will undermine everything that has been said in defense of transgenderism here.

The pot calling the kettle black here. . . you want to separate them out for safety reasons yet not actually give a solution to why there was a need for said separation to begin with. — substantivalism

We're talking about feelings here. Does a woman's need to feel safe override a man's feeling to be a woman? Who's feelings get affirmed at the expense of the others?

Right. As far as I can tell it's not a matter of rights. It's just up to the community's sentiments. — frank

Do we have a right to feel safe? Does our need to feel safe override other people's rights to do other things?

The right to pee without any biological males around? — frank

It's really more of not wanting to take off your pants with any males around as that would include cases in the locker room as well.

Since you are asking "how we can know about the world even though "we don't see the world as it is", I will assume you could not keep yourself from sliding, and so you believe solipsism is the case unless demonstrated otherwise. — Richard B

I'm not a solipsist so the rest of your post is irrelevant. The fact that you did not answer the question is indicative that you do not have an answer yet you keep claiming that we do not see the world as it is, so my point was that YOU are the solipsist, not me.

To even attempt to answer the question, how about you start off by answering whether you experience your mind as it is or not.

You tell me. You seem to think that there are good reasons to separate bathrooms according some biological binary. What are those reasons? Perhaps when we examine those reasons we might conclude that, actually, we ought separate according to genitals, and that DNA, hormones, and mammary glands are irrelevant. — Michael

You seem to think there are good reasons to change what has worked. The only reasons you provide is to point at 0.1% of the population of intersex people and being logically inconsistent with assuming the claims of some delusions but not others without question.

I would love for there to be an actual intersex person with the traits you provided to speak to and hear what they have to say. You seem to think they would be easy to find. I'm not worried about that small fraction of society. I'm more worried about the much larger portion that preys one women.

Changing society is often a good thing. I think society should be more tolerant of trans people. It's a lot better now than it was when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's. — RogueAI

I am tolerant of anyone who keeps their delusions to themselves - whether it be believing in a God or believing you're a woman in a man's body - and not expect others to change in ways to affirm their delusion.

There's a political dispute about semantics. This portion of the dispute is a waste of time- I mentioned some serious issues; this isn't one of them- it's a distraction. — Relativist

Incorrect. You want to discuss the symptom while I want to focus on the cause. If you don't value logical consistency and questioning ALL extraordinary claims that are being made, then what's the use?

I don't need to understand why they wish to transition to understand that trans men do not believe that they have a penis. Indeed, the very fact that they transition (if they do) proves that they know that they don't have a penis.

So it's unclear what delusion you think they're suffering from. — Michael

...that they should have a penis.

Again, why would one need to transition if gender is separate from sex? Doesn't the fact that some do and some don't means that we're talking about two separate conditions, not one, yet we put those that do transition and those that do not under the same umbrella of "trans-gender".

Then they have 3 female traits and 2 male traits and so are female and ought use the women's changing rooms, compete in women's sports, etc.? — Michael

What I have said would support this, yes. Is there a problem? Notice though that we have moved from talking about trans-gender to trans-sexual, or intersex. How can this be if gender and sex are distinct?

there remains biological ambiguity, — unenlightened

It smacks of the one drop rule to me. — unenlightened

I would hardly call 99.9% vs. 0.1% a biological ambiguity. In nature, this is about has unambiguous you can get. This smacks of confusing mutations (mistakes in copying genes from one generation to the next) as biological ambiguities within a species.

Your assertion is consistent with my view that part of the issue is semantics. — Relativist

It's not semantics. It's politics.

The type of reasoning the left side of the spectrum is practicing here is no different than the reasoning the right makes when advocating societal change based on their unfounded beliefs. The leftists here have no problem questioning the claims of the right when it comes to the existence of God when the right is proposing changing society in ways that "affirms" their beliefs. The leftists are failing to question the claims of a transgender person when they claim to be a man or woman when they are the opposite.

This is no different than the religious right advocating for God in public schools when they cannot even provide evidence for the existence of God. You are assuming the person's premise that they are a woman or man and then using that to affect societal change.

This is typical of political and religious discussions where one side abandons logic and reason because they have an emotional attachment to the claims they are making, or are wishing to score political capital.

I am being logically consistent in this regard. I question the claims of the right and the left when they are using those claims for the basis of societal change but cannot provide any good evidence that any of their claims are true.

Is that always a problem? People often have trivial delusions that their friends and co-workers humor. For example, someone might think they're a great singer or deep thinker and they're not and nobody has the heart to tell them the truth. — RogueAI

It is when they are using their claims as the basis for changing society. Did you friend demand they receive an Grammy?

Yet you are making all these claims about reality as it is. Am I to believe the claims you have made about reality?

As my eyes scan across the image, I'm convinced shapes are moving and shifting. Of course they aren't, and I can figure that out analytically, and yet it seems so deeply true of my experience of the image, that I'm experiencing looking at moving shifting shapes.

Some illusions are perhaps conscious misinterpretations, but our experience of the world comes through a lot of filters before it becomes a conscious experience. The existence of those pre-experiential filters, which I think unambiguously exist, prove that we can't just be "experiencing reality as it is". — flannel jesus

This is due to a conscious effort of shifting one's attention to a specific area of the picture to the picture as a whole and back.

What does that even mean, "experience reality as it is"? Is your mind part of reality? Do you experience your mind as it is?

The fact that you know that there are unconscious filters is evidence that you are experiencing reality as it is.

You need to provide an explanation as to how we can still know reality as it is when we cannot experience or see the world as it is.

Firstly, not all do. Secondly, you'll have to ask them, not me. Thirdly, the same can be asked about anyone who undergoes cosmetic surgery, whether transgender or not. — Michael

But you are speaking for them, so you appear to know what they think. It's ironic to see you speak for them up to the point when you are faced with difficult questions.

It's a long discussion and I haven't read every post. — Michael

Yet you are notified of responses to your posts. If notifications are not working, maybe you should notify an admin.

The point is that in continuing to make the "bathroom" argument you are merely trying to address a symptom of the problem, not the cause - which is affirming someone's delusions for political capital.

If someone born without a penis believes that they have a penis then they would be suffering from a delusion, but this isn't what trans men believe. — Michael

Then why do trans people modify there biology? If merely believing something is an affirmation, then there would be no need to modify one's biology.

What would it scan for? Chromosomes? Genitals? What if someone has XX chromosomes and a penis? — Michael

As I pointed out earlier in this thread that you appeared to have ignored, there are five traits that determine one's sex. You are one or the other based on having a majority (three or more) traits of a male or female.

In the absence of any sexual context and intention to cause alarm and distress – being naked in public is within the law.

How do you determine one's intention in this case? And this does not address the point I made in explaining what a trans person would be in a society where there are no clothes, and everyone is naked.

how do we know about any illusions at all?

Well, regardless of the question "how", it's not controversial to state that we DO experience illusions, and somehow we have ways of figuring out they're illusions. That's not controversial at all. It sounds like a failure of your intellectual creativity if you can't figure out ways to determine if any of our experiences are illusory. — flannel jesus

I don't deny that we do experience illusions, but then to know that you are experiencing an illusion means that you have some sense of how the world is.

Besides, illusions are misinterpretations of sensory data. Our senses never lie, but we can misinterpret what they are telling us, just as you can misinterpret what someone is saying even though they are being truthful.

For instance, mirages and "bent" straws in water, are only illusions if you do not understand the nature of light. When you do not take into account that your eyes see light, not objects, then your direct-realist self is going to assume that you see objects as they are and then get confused with these illusions. But if you understand the nature of light, and that you see light, not objects, then mirages and bent straws is exactly what you would expect to experience. Your experiences become predictable.

Metaphysical theories like this are hopeless, no evidence can be presented to cure this mental disease, and only demands some sort of persuasion to cure it. I find a good dose of humor can do the trick to expose the absurdity of such a position.

“As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me.” — Richard B

To keep yourself from sliding down the slope into solipsism, you need to come up with an explanation as to how we can know about the world even though "we don't see the world as it is".

My point is that bathrooms and sports are separated by biology, not gender. If sex and gender are separate then why is it so difficult to make a meaningful distinction between them? — Harry Hindu

, ,

A meaningful question to ask is why we have such separations.

For sports it's to give biological women a competitive chance, and that may be a reason to exclude trans women from women's sports. But then what about trans men? They're biological women, so ought they compete in women's sports? Or do we say that trans men who have taken hormones to transition into a man must compete in men's sports?

For bathrooms it may be something to do with "decency" or safety, but that may be a reason to allow trans women (esp. post-surgery) to use women's bathrooms and trans men (esp. post-surgery) to use men's bathrooms, and so bathrooms ought not be separated by biology but by something else (e.g. outward appearance, even if "artificial"). Of course, the difficulty then comes in how such things can be policed. Ought everyone be subject to genital inspection before and/or after using a public bathroom? — Michael

Your post just re-iterates my point - that there is no meaningful distinction between gender and sex. If one "affirms" their gender by taking hormones and having surgery, then gender is biological, not social. This would be like "affirming" an anorexic's distorted view of their body by prescribing them diet pills and performing bariatric surgery on them. The problem is not "men" using women's bathroom. The problem is affirming another's delusions for the purpose of using them as political pawns.

"Men" and "women" are terms we use to distinguish not just sexes but species as well. Men and women are similar to "buck" and "doe", "drone" and "queen", etc. in that they distinguish the males and females of different species.

If you read the rest of my post, you would see that I had said that we can have body scanners at public bathroom entrances to scan for biological features, not gendered ones - whatever that is if it is not a synonym for "sex".

In a society where it is against the law for people to walk around naked, we have adopted rules for the purpose of finding mates in a society where our bodies are covered. Trans people are uprooting these agreed upon rules for how females and males present themselves in society for the purpose of distinguishing between men and women so that heterosexuals and homosexuals (which are sexual orientations, not gender orientations) can find proper mates. Is a homosexual man still a homosexual if they are attracted to female dressed as a man? Is it right for a trans person to fool a homosexual into having intimate relations with them?

What would trans-gender mean in a society with no clothes - where we all walk around naked?

So. . . your solution as to why male assaults is so prevalent and how to solve this epidemic is to just put cameras or xray machines facing bathroom entrances.

So is the only way to solve the male asymmetry in assaults' is to use women as bait and wait for these offenders to jail themselves after they have or just nearly did assault someone? Brilliant strategy there. — substantivalism

I don't see how your response follows from my proposed solution. Are you saying everyone on an airplane is being used as bait for a terrorist hijacking? This is what you are saying, not me. If you want to insist on affirming delusions so men can get close to women in their safe-spaces, that is your position, not mine. I don't carry guns onto airplanes and have no intent on hijacking one, yet I am still subject to a search before boarding an airplane.

What is your point. I simply said anyone can dress up as the opposite sex and enter another toilet. If you can literally not tell the difference there is no way of policing this.

I don't know about you, but I have seen plenty of gay men entering female toilets with their girl friends. Illegal? Yes. Does anyone really care that much to enforce it? No.

No matter what the laws are people will go on being people and work things out in their own way.

Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions.
— Harry Hindu

You think having 'disabled toilets' functioning as 'universal toilets' is equivalent to stating gender and sex are the same thing? Are you taking the piss? ;) — I like sushi

My point is that bathrooms and sports are separated by biology, not gender. If sex and gender are separate then why is it so difficult to make a meaningful distinction between them?

Neither is every person who comes through the border from another a country a saint. . . so does that imply something legally we are supposed to do when there IS NO MORAL/LEGAL OFFENCE COMMITTED? — substantivalism

Yet we use xray machines to determine who has a weapon before entering a building or airplane. Similar devices can be added to the entrances of bathrooms where it detects if one is a male or female. There doesn't even need to be a human being to monitor it, so we don't need humans looking in anyone's pants before entering a public restroom.

So if I had two groups, demarcated by race/gender/sex/religion/etc, should we enforce laws to separate them if there was the possibility of increased conflict from them? — substantivalism

For the purpose of taking a piss or shit, yes, people should be separated. When it comes to determining what is best for the future of humanity, and a great many other things, no.

While what you say is true. Language is expressed in physical ways, so we perceive it the way we perceive everything else. Everything is party of the danger works.

Still, language is different from anything else in ways. The physical means of its expression are irrelevant to, and separate from, the meaning of what is being expressed. We can see an apple. It never means anything, and is always the physical object. We can see written words. They always mean something other than the physical marks we see.

Waves crashing on the beach cause vibrations in the air that we hear. But the sound doesn't mean anything. It doesn't even mean waves crashing on the beach. It's just an effect of the physical interaction of waves and beach. Air passing through vocal cords that are manipulated in certain ways cause vibrations in the air that we hear as words. Those words mean something beyond just the effect of the physical interaction of the air and vocal chords.

So no, not separate from the shared world we live in. But different from most things in that shared world. — Patterner

The purpose of a desktop interface is not to show you the “truth” of the computer — Hoffman, Donald D. (2019). The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes (Function). Kindle Edition.

The Cartesian theater and Plato's cave are very dark places, but if the occupants still have their sanity and astuteness, they may notice light emanating from an entrance. So, when they boldly choose to exit, they will not find absolute certainty or those majestic eternal forms, but discover a chaotic, treacherous world that brave and ingenious people strive to cope and overcome by sharing their experiences, thoughts, and creations through the vehicle of language. — Richard B

and other people are part of the shadows one experiences. Other people's existence is questioned by questioning the idea that you see the world as it is. Once you start to question your experiences, you question everything's existence - including words and the people that use them. Solipsism logically follows from unfettered skepticism about the reality of an external world.

We know we don't experience reality "as it is" for same very basic reasons - our visual and auditory ranges are rather arbitrary. Why do you think your vision starts at red wavelengths and ends at violet? Other creatures colour wavelength sensitivity ends at different places, so they're experiencing something different from us - are they also experiencing reality "as it is"? How can we be experiencing drastically different experiences, and yet still be experiencing reality "as it is"?

And consider the colour wheel itself. We experience colours, not as a linear spectrum but as a loop. That's not "reality at it is", wavelengths don't loop. Your brain is fabricating that experience for you, it's not out there in the real world. — flannel jesus

How can any of this be said if we do not see reality as it is? In one breath you make all these claims about how reality is, and in the next breath claim we do not see reality as it is.

How do you know we are experiencing reality differently if you do not see reality as it is? How can you say that your brain is fabricating the experience if you don't see reality as it is?

Do you experience your mind as it really is? If so, does that not lend one to believe that the world is like one's mind being that the mind is part of the world? If so, does this not mean that you experience (at least part of) the world as it is? And finally, does it matter that we don't see the world "as it is", but know the world as it is? If we can know the world well enough to land rovers on Mars, then we know the world as it is.

So keep them separate as long as the issues persist. . . you are going to now give a solution to those issues so we can move on from this right? That is why you are bringing it up. You don't want to do such and such because it would increase rate of women being raped by men. . . you are going to give a solution to that and not a mere spatial bandage, right? — substantivalism

Uh... yes. Keep the violent people away from non-violent people. What did you not understand about that? If trans are being placed among a violent prison population, it is because they committed acts of violence themselves. You seem to think that all trans people are saints and only cis-people can be mean and disrespectful.

To be fair, if men are going to do this they needn't 'dress up' for the occasion. If someone appears to be female then I see no real harm in them entering a toilet. The issue being there is no way to tell. If there is a clear case where someone is a man dressed as a woman, then if they enter and no one sees them it makes no difference. — I like sushi

It makes it easier to commit the crime, because they are able to enter a woman's safe space without anyone being suspicious, and get away with it because they are wearing a disguise.

Other ideas would be to rename 'Disabled' toilets as 'Universal' (or something like that). — I like sushi

Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions.

These philosophers all propose various forms of 'the argument from reason', which says that, were reason to be understandable purely in naturalistic terms, as an adaptation to the environment, then how could we have confidence in reason? Of course, that is a very deep question - rather too deep to be addressed in terms of cognitive science, I would have thought. — Wayfarer

It would seem to me that survival within your environment is a selective pressure that promotes accurate perceptions over inaccurate ones.

We talk like we know what we refer to when Nagel talks about “what it is like to be a bat” or when Hoffman talks about “the taste of mint”, but it could be nothing, something, or somethings, all of which are irrelevant to the meaning of our expressions. — Richard B

But what about Hoffman and Nagel's speech and written words? Are they something, nothing, or somethings?

Why do philosophers on this forum tend to put language up on this pedestal as if it is somehow separate from the shared world we live in - as if we access language differently than we do the rest of the world. We don't. Any skepticism of how we experience the world would be logically applied to the way we hear and see words because we access words the same way we access everything else - via our senses. If we question what words mean, we question what words are, or even if they exist the same way apples on tables do.

I don't think we "see reality as it is". I don't think "reality as it is" is a visual experience. But I still think there is a reality. — flannel jesus

So we can accomplish all these tasks that we set out to do through the day, but we don't see reality as it is? We can build computers, program them, build rockets to the Moon, get to and from work every day, type a response to a philosophical post we read, etc. - many tasks that do not directly involve survival at all, yet we accomplish our goals.

Are the words on this page experienced as they are?

Is your mind experienced as it is? Do we experience the UI as it is?

Trump is not all wrong, but neither is he all right — Athena

Sure. This can be said of most Reps and Dems. The problems is that Reps and Dems are not allowed to disagree with their own party and tell them when they are wrong, and find the good in the other side to reach a compromise.

Is eliminating government waste a good thing? Instead of just working against anything Trump does, even though they have done it themselves in the past, why not try to work with the other side to have some input in what is being cut. The Dems have cried wolf so many times when it comes to Trump that no one cares any more about the fear-mongering they propagate, even when he actually does something wrong - like when he recently spoke about ignoring the separation of church and state. The Dems are just as much at fault that Trump is president as Trump is.

Call me delusion. but I think the following things are pretty darn good for people that I have never met:

- having access to quality health care
- knowing that you will always have a roof over your head no matter how poor you are
- knowing that you will never go hungry,
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having the wrong religious or political beliefs
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having a tattoo
- etc

In fact I will go out on a limb and say that these things are good for societies - not just for individual people. — EricH

The last two are Libertarian positions. The first three, how can government guarantee any of those things? If there were a natural disaster would you wait for government assistance, or try to find food and shelter yourself, and would it be government or the kindness of other people you have established relations with that help you?

I'm not sure what you mean? Nazi Germany was not authoritarian before it became authoritarian and it's how it became authoritarian where these things happen. It's the erosion of free speech through the absolute tolerance of all speech that enables the radicalization of people to the point of them then standing behind authoritarian restrictions. — Christoffer

The method by which it attained power was by suppressing alternative views - by keeping the citizens uninformed of viable alternatives. The moment they were able to suppress any opposing viewpoints, they held power over the people.

You are still talking about the end game authoritarian state, not how it got to that point. If you had a group in society which just started limiting opposing viewpoints it would rally the people against them, this is not how a free society evolves into an authoritarian state. — Christoffer

Yet people in society were incited by what someone said, even when opposing viewpoints are available. It was because the information was suppressed that people were incited. If the rioters had the correct information and still rioted, who would be at fault?

Second part is describing how in a free society people would not be fooled or radicalized because there's always access to a counter-point; — Christoffer

Just look at the political discussions on this forum. Most people on the left and right live in bubbles where they only get information from one side. There isn't always a counter-point if they live in a bubble, hence my solution to change the way the media disseminates information and abolishing political parties. Again, if the rioters had access to the counter-point and still rioted, how would that change the culpability of who started the riot?

Freedom of speech absolutism does not have limits on anything, that's the core of that ideal — Christoffer

You are confusing freedom of speech absolutism with authoritarian speech - where you are ignoring that free speech entails the ability to question what is said, and the rioters did not have that, and possibly didn't care that they didn't. The only absolutism of free speech is the absolute capacity to question authority. Even then I might not say absolute as any criticism needs to be well founded and logical, but then I might ask, if criticism is not well founded and logical, is it really criticism or a straw-man?

These are two different things. You can have the ability to question authority and disagree with others AND also face repercussions when you are completely out of line. This is why I outlined a restrictive point of view and a Absolutist point of view. — Samlw

They are only separate things in an authoritarian society - where a select few get to say what they want without repercussions - when there is no counter to what is being said.

Whilst people disagreeing and questioning is technically a repercussion, I would consider it more of people exercising their rights as much as you,(and if you are an absolutist you would also agree). I would also not put it on the same level as jail time / community service. — Samlw

Exactly. The person that is disseminating propaganda is not exercising their right to free speech. The ones that possess the capacity to question authority - what is being said - are the ones exercising their rights. The one disseminating propaganda is actually infringing upon the rights of others free speech precisely because they are suppressing other information that would allow listeners to make up their own mind instead of being incited. So again, you are simply describing an instance of totalitarianism - where only one view is propagated while all others are suppressed, not free speech.

So whilst I understand how it may come across as contradictory if you look at it at face value, I think you have to accept that people disagreeing is going to be a fundamental certainty but it should not mean that you can be extreme or push hatred. — Samlw

But it is not a certainty when you are not informed of other views that contradicts what is being said. Essentially what is happening is the suppression of free thought, which is the basis of free speech.

In all the examples provided thus far, would the people be incited if they had access to all the information? If there wasn't a riot, would the speaker still be arrested for what they said?

If children are informed what grooming is, will they not know what to look for when someone is attempting to groom them? One of my children was separated from us while at Disney when they were young. Before this, I explained what they should do if they ever get lost in a large area with a lot of people. They should go inside one of the stores, look for a female employee, not some random stranger, and tell them they lost their parents. This is exactly what my daughter did, and she was 6 or 7 at the time, and we were reunited within an hour. By being informed she made the right decisions and limited her risk of some random malevolent stranger kidnapping her.

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

I provided five traits that almost always occur together in females and males.
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

They would be whatever they have a majority (three or more) of the traits.

Then someone with ovotesticular disorder or is both biologically male and biologically female, and someone with gonadal dysgenesis is neither biologically male nor biologically female. — Michael

There are X chromosomes and Y chromosomes, with particular combinations being responsible for particular phenotypes (e.g. XX typically responsible for the development of breasts and a vagina, and XY typically responsible for the development of a penis), but this relationship is not absolute (e.g. those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes but develop breasts and a vagina), and there are more combinations than just XX and XY. — Michael

Male and female are not syndromes or disorders.

You don’t seem to recognise that being intersex is a biological condition. — Michael

Sure, it's a biological condition, but is it a sex condition, or a vestigial trait, like the tail?

A hermaphrodite is either an abnormality or a natural condition, depending on the species. We are discussing humans.

It may be that placing transgender women in men’s prisons and transgender men in women’s prisons results in more victims of sexual assault than placing transgender women in women’s prisons and transgender men in men’s prisons. — Michael

Or it may be that any person perceived as weak, regardless of their sex/gender, will be the target of assaults. This is prison we are talking about and violent criminals are typically housed with other violent criminals. If a trans person committed a violent act, I couldn't care less where they are housed (karma), just as long as they are segregated from the rest of us.

As for sports and bathrooms, I think we've gotten along perfectly fine with the way things are. If you are so concerned about the weak being injured or raped, then why create circumstances where women are injured by men in sports and raped by men in bathrooms?

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? — Michael

How are we going to police men with a dress and a wig that claim to be a woman with the intent to victimize women in a women's bathroom?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there, or if you've misunderstood my argument here.

I accept that "99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes — male and female" as you say, but also that 0.1% of people fall outside these classes, and so are classified as neither male nor female but as intersex.

Malcolm Perry seems to be arguing that there's no such thing as being intersex; that every human is either male or female, even if it's difficult for us to determine which. And that's simply not the case. Human biology is complex, and the English nouns "male" and "female" do not fully capture this complexity. — Michael

Can intersex people pass their intersex genes down to other generations? Are there intersex genes, or male and female genes that sometimes get muddled in the process of sex - of merging TWO different sets of genes together and would qualify as a mutation, but one that does not promote the survival of the species?

If a person is born with a tail are they considered interspecies?

Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not? — Harry Hindu

If so, then how do you reconcile that with the notion that free speech is also :

You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions — Samlw

Wouldn't disagreeing, questioning, and criticizing what was said qualify as repercussions?

All the examples you and others have given are basically begging the question that free speech entails "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions", while forgetting free speech is the capacity to question authority and disagree with what is said.

I agree with this legal ruling and its implications as it's consistent with my own stated position here — 180 Proof

Why do we need a legal ruling when science resolved that question long ago? Does science now require legal rulings to prove or disprove a scientific theory?

It wasn't to long before your expressed position that many on this forum threatened banning people for even questioning the idea. I felt I was walking on egg shells when I started this thread around the same time:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5097/is-gender-a-social-construct/p1

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. — Michael

Not really, When it comes to the brain sure, but sex parts - no.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/256369

Still hiding behind straw-men. Answer the question you keep ignoring.

Assume one does. I promise John £1,000 if he kills my wife. John then kills my wife. I renege on my promise. Ought I be punished for my wife's murder? — Michael

Why waste time on all these unrealistic assumptions and get to the point of the matter - does free speech involve the capacity to question authority and criticize what others say, or not?

Even if we were to suspend reality for the sake of your example, you still need to explain how the idea of free speech defined as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions" is reconciled with the idea that everyone has the right to free speech, which includes questioning authority and criticizing what others say because your examples are all of those in some authoritative position dictating to others, or manipulating others (in your new example) that lack the correct information. The solution to all of your examples it to have a more informed population - where all views are free to be expressed and criticized, not less free speech.

The reason why grooming is illegal and it is specifically targeted at older people mistreating minors, is that minors may not know better. Would you really say to a victim of grooming ,"You should of just questioned authority"? — Samlw

Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.

If you have another example then give it. It seems that this is all you have - some nebulous example that can be construed as both action and speech, or speech over weeks, and I'm sure grooming involves more than just saying words.

I'm waiting on an example that shows a clear distinction between action and speaking where the speaking is clearly the cause of the violent act of another. There isn't one.

So, you can ignore my main point all you want, but that is a response all in itself.

Biden isn't physically placing handcuffs on Trump and throwing him in jail; he's only uttered the phrase "Have Trump arrested and thrown in jail" to his Attorney General. — Michael

I'm pretty sure there would be much more involved than just making sounds with his mouth.

Besides, this misses the point that what you are describing actually a lack of free speech, where a dictator tells people what to do and no one is allowed to question the orders.

I'm only uttering the phrase "I'll give you £1,000 if you kill my wife" to him. — Michael

Again, there is more involved than just making sounds with your mouth. You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word.

This is not a good example. no one should (and rarely does) go to jail over smoking cannabis and should only be arrested if they have a quantity that is deemed excessive in their possession. you have crafted a hypothetical that works for you. Answer a more serious and mature hypothetical of something that does happen and does ruin lives. — Samlw

You missed the point entirely. I never said they should go to jail for smoking it. I was asking if the one telling them to smoke it should go to jail or not?

It seems to me that throwing people in jail for saying things ruins peoples lives.

A person above the age of 18 speaks to a young teenager (13-15) and slowly over many days and weeks grooms them. Should we wait until the person over 18 does something illegal such as sexually exploit the teen or have the teen sell drugs... or should we enforce the law before the teen is coerced into doing something they shouldn't? — Samlw

What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts?

What you are describing is not using free speech to groom someone, but a lack of it in not having the ability to question authority and disagree with what is being said.

It is illogical to define free speech as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions", as free speech includes the rights of others to say what they want, which could be disagreeing with and criticizing what another says, which are repercussions to what one has said. So in a free society that values free speech - EVERYONE has the right, not just a select few (as that is the antithesis of free speech), to speak their mind, which includes questioning authority and criticizing and questioning what others have said.

If Biden, when he was President, were to have instructed the Department of Justice to arrest his political opponents and hold them in prison without trial, and if they were to then do so, would you place (some) responsibility on Biden, and argue that this warrants impeachment and removal from office (and perhaps also arrest), or would you blame only the individual officers who carry out the instruction? — Michael

Biden would not be impeached because he spoke, but because he acted in ways that are unconstitutional.

Should I be punished for hiring a contract killer to kill my spouse? I didn't kill her; I just asked someone else to and promised him money. — Michael

You would be punished for conspiracy to commit murder, which is a crime of action, not speech.

How about this example:
If a friend gave you a joint and told you to smoke it and you did, should the friend go to jail for telling you to smoke it, or simply for possession and distribution of an illegal substance?

It seems you are confusing actions with speech.

Let me ask you this: Is it always the case that when violence occurs and the suspect points to another person and says, "But he told me to do it!", that the person they are pointing is guilty of some crime? If not, explain to me the process you would determine the other's guilt at the expense of the one that actually committed violent acts.

Many of us believe in free will, and argue against hard determinism, and so deny the claim that speech can have some irresistible, compulsive force on others, but still accept that encouragement and persuasion are very real psychological phenomena, and that speech that encourages or persuades others to engage in (certain) unlawful activity ought itself be unlawful. — Michael

It only persuades the weak-minded and uninformed, which is not a problem of an abundance of free speech, but a lack of it - a problem of how we educate citizens and how the media disseminates information.

I mostly call myself a socialist, but I do support policies that improve people's lives and reduce injustice. — Vera Mont

How do you determine what is best for other people that you have never met? Who gets to determine what is best for everyone?

Progress is temporary; everything we build with long, laborious effort is regularly torn down by regressives. Wrecking is faster and easier than building. All the same battles have to fought again, generation by generation, just to be a little better than than previous century. — Vera Mont

Really? So when in history did humans solve the problem of going to the Moon before solving it in 1969, or cure polio and the measles, etc.? Those were not problems that were solved and now solved again. Science is what makes society progress, and it wasn't until only a few hundred years ago that Science was free to challenge the claims of the Church, to allow what we have now - the freedom to ask question and get answers, and then challenge the current answers when better ones come along.

I wonder what percent of us actually understand more about the universe and ourselves and whaty percent has given up the supernatural answers. The regressives are even now dismantling the edifices of science and learning. — Vera Mont

Where? I know they are trying, but they are not succeeding. There is no forced prayer in public schools, and public schools do not teach intelligent design, but evolution. And it's not just either or, many have tried to integrate evolution and the Big Bang with intelligent design. They fail because they do not realize the logic and observation simply doesn't support it.

I said children need laws to protect them from bad parents and other kinds of harm — Vera Mont

And this is exactly what I've been saying. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians believe in limited government. Most (I would say a vast majority of) mothers do not need a law telling them to care for their baby. As such, the laws to not kill your baby is only for a small minority of people. When you only need laws to protect yourself from a small fraction of the populaton, you don't need a big, bloated government to do that - just a limited one.

I do not know what you mean by TOS and TNG. — Athena

TOS = The Original Series
TNG = The Next Generation

Yes, I have watched them - hence my comparison of the various cultures and their political structures in my prior post.

On the other hand, I am wondering what in hell is Trump doing making economic decisions instead of leaving them up to the business people. — Athena

Trump is a business person.

He came to power through the church and ministers, telling us his strength proves he stands with God. — Athena

He came to power like every other Republican and Democrat - through deception and manipulation of the fears of citizens.

I enjoy agreement. It helps me feel like I am not alone in the struggle to save the democracy we inherited. I am struggling for words to raise consciousness of what the Military Industrial Complex has done to our culture. — Athena

The current state of the military industrial complex did not come about randomly, out of the blue. When our only options for representation in government are generals and lawyers, what do you expect to happen?

How can there be people with good moral judgment if none are educated for that? Education for good moral judgement is not reading the Bible. It may include reading the Bible and every other holy book and the classics, but this isn't just about learning what others have said. — Athena

The Bible and other holy books are not what we should be looking to for moral guidance. They would be more in the domain of historical fictional stories. Any similarities between the moral teachings of different religions is an outcome of human nature and natural selection, not some supernatural entity. Ever read "The Selfish Gene", which is ironically more about how altruism evolved as a means to compete against selfishness? Selfishness and altruism do not necessary have to be at odds. If we are not at least somewhat selfish, how can we as individuals be altruistic if we do not focus on maintaining our own health and sanity?

There is an important difference between education for independent thinking or education for "groupthink". If you can, watch and compare the original Star Trek and The Next Generation. That TV series marks the point in time when we had a cultural shift. Captain Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space. Captain Picard is the "groupthink" shift. — Athena

I don't see much of a cultural difference between TOS and TNG. I do see a huge cultural difference between the Federation (everyone is free to live and let live) and the Borg (group-think).

The Klingons and Cardassians would be like 24th century fascists, the Borg 24th century communists and the Federation 24th century Libertarians. Notice how there are no political parties in the Federation. :wink:

Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule? — Janus

I fail to see your point. Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not?