So sport is a very complex psychology and not something one can just wade into. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think your post is a good summary of the issue. I'm not someone who cares much about sports, but I do care about fairness. From what I've read, biological males who compete as women in mixed martial arts consistently beat the crap out of biological females, sometimes causing serious injury. That's not fair.

The focus of this debate should be how to protect trans people from discrimination, bigotry, and violence concerning their use of bathrooms and definitely not on falsely stigmatising one of our most vulnerable minority groups as a "danger" or "threat". — Baden

No. The focus of the debate should be on figuring out how to help transgender men and women become valued members of our communities without having to pretend they're something they're not. Sounds like that may already have happened in Thailand. We have to find a way to do it here. I don't think what you suggest will do that.

You haven't demonstrated any danger. I have no evidence to suggest trans women are a "danger" in women's bathrooms. — Baden

It doesn't seem like you understood what I wrote. I don't see any value in trying to explain more clearly. We can leave it at that.

IMO, the most equitable solution would be to provide three public, multi-occupant, wheelchair-accessible restrooms designated for Men, Women & Unisex. Someone has probably already pointed out that considerations of 'chromosomal biology' or 'gender self-identification' are too reductive for pragmatically providing disambiguated public accomodations. — 180 Proof

Pragmatic - solves the problem - but it's not very philosophical, sociological, or political. I don't think this whole question is about people's comfort and safety, it's about stuffing it down the throats of people who disagree with us.

Doesn't it make more sense to have a holiday for the passing of the 13th amendment when it became illegal to have slavery everywhere in the United States? Why a holiday because Texas was slow to get the message? And shouldn't a holiday be based on our greatest triumphs, and not a reminder of our worst failings? — TiredThinker

It's a holiday because this is a day that's important to black people and it's been that way for a 150 years. What you have to say isn't what's important.

It's interesting that no one ever raises the issue of female to trans-male. No one seems to care — Tom Storm

I don't think people care nearly as much. I doubt anyone cares if trans males want to compete on a men's sports team. I read an article in the past couple of years about a trans man who competed on the Harvard swim team with no problem. The rest of the team accepted him.

Safety first, yes. Should violence occur, I would blame the actor, to a much less extent someone specifically inciting it, to no extent someone who just has a different point of view, even if they hold it passionately. — Hanover

I would say that anyone on either side of the issue not willing to make reasonable compromises to minimize the danger of violence shares in the responsibility.

providing gender neutral accommodations--toilets, locker rooms, and so on is not a trivial expense, — BC

That's certainly not true to the extent that it is for the disabled. For almost all conditions they do not require special physical accommodation. The only things I can think of off the top of my head are bathrooms and barracks/dormitories. You don't really need a lot of special facilities. As I noted, simply including a few unisex bathrooms along with the regular men's and women's could suffice. Can you think of anything else? Gay people don't require special accommodation. Except as noted why should trans people?

[Edit] Should have included issues with sports teams.

I still don't see why any of this philosophy/sociology/psychology/anthropology/politics makes any difference. Is it reasonable for women to object to sharing bathrooms and locker rooms with trans women. I say yes. What's the solution? Make reasonable accommodation, e.g. a separate unisex bathroom and locker room. Asking for more before the community has come to terms with the troublesome moral/religious/social/political issues involved is unreasonable. It will also obviously also lead to more conflict and more violence.

If it turns out to be the case that forcing trans women into men's toilets results in more violence overall against the innocent (whoever they may be) then it would seem the most humane policy would be not to do that. — Baden

I have a couple of problems with this. First, if you're saying that it's ok to put more women in danger as long as the overall level of danger is lower, I doubt that will sell very well. It certainly doesn't convince me. Second, putting biological men in women's bathrooms is very clearly going to increase the danger of violence for them because it's going to make people angry. If you want trans people to be accepted, it doesn't make any sense to make a big deal about an issue like this.

Which brings us back to the fact that 99.5% of people are not transgendered. My high school had about 1,000 students. That means about five of them would be trans. Even if it's significantly more than that, does it make sense to disrupt all the other students lives and make the community furious for the benefit of so few? The obvious solution is to provide a separate a smaller unisex bathroom and locker room for anyone who wants to to use it. It could have private dressing rooms and showers.

In 10 years, maybe it won't matter anymore. In the meantime, the trans community is going to have to be accommodating to public sentiment.

Evidence that trans women are a threat in women's bathrooms, please. — Baden

That's a good question. Do trans women actually have to be a threat before it is reasonable to exclude them from women's bathrooms... I'll think about that.

I don't have any statistics, but if you look on the web you'll see instances of people who call themselves transgender women raping other women. How many do there have to be before it is too many? The vast majority of men would not rape women if they shared bathrooms with them.

I guess it comes down to that for me - if it's not reasonable to exclude trans women from women's bathrooms, then it's not reasonable to exclude men either. Perhaps @Tom Storm's idea of only unisex bathrooms is the way to go.

I think bathrooms should be unisex, — Tom Storm

My concerns about bathrooms would primarily be a) Trans women being forced to use the men's bathroom and being harassed or assaulted there on being identified as trans. — Baden

Having unisex bathrooms might be fine if each one held just one person, but larger locations tend to have communal bathrooms. As I see it, it's reasonable for a biological female to be uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a biological male, no matter how that biological male identifies. It is not unreasonable to restrict certain bathrooms for use by biological females. It is not necessarily bigotry for a biological women to be unwilling to share a bathroom with a transgender women.

For me, it comes down to the fact that transgender people make up less than 0.5 percent of the adult population. A fair and humane society will find a place for them as members of the community. That doesn't mean that social institutions that have been in place for a very long time have to be discarded immediately for their convenience.

the unexplainable effects of biogenesis — simplyG

Unexplained ≠ unexplainable.

I'm not going to touch that one. :wink: — Tom Storm

There are rich capitalist countries I can think of that seem close to failed states. — Tom Storm

Can you give us an example? If you say the USA, I'll stick my tongue out at you.

Sometimes economic success comes through working smarter, not harder, sometimes it's built on population size, sometimes it's provided by abundant natural resources, sometimes war plays a role. Or all of the above. — Tom Storm

Have your read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." It makes the case that geology can also be determinative historically.

Hmm, not in the same sense, morality polices thoughts and intentions as well, and it is used as the logic of groups. Any form of social control will be coercive in some sense, but it's mostly just policing actions, it's not quite the same. I also think that they're much less controversial because, unlike many moral views, social ideas such as the social contract, manners and rules of conduct aren't beneficial to any particular group, they're benign. Most people should be able to agree on them, and some moral ideas are like that too, but not always. — Judaka

I'm not sure I agree with this, e.g. sex roles and racial prejudice. I don't think these are not generally, or at least not always, expressed in a moral framework. I think they have to do more with psychological comfort, the need for standardization, and some sort of feeling for the smooth operation of society.

Well, I used it as an example, AI is a complicated issue that I won't get into here. I'm just saying we can't know whether they care or not because the environment is coercive, and that the incentives to find AI moral or immoral are playing a significant role in the debate. — Judaka

AI is just one example - climate change, nuclear weapons, opposition to non-fossil fuels...

I know what you mean, but such thinking is perhaps lacking in subtlety. Society has little choice but to hold people responsible for their actions, so there is pragmatic, even if not purely rational, warrant for that. To hold people responsible is not necessarily to blame them, though, but would necessarily entail restraining them by whatever means required, in order to stop them committing further crimes, or in the case of lesser infractions, shunning them or shaming them, in the hope of discouraging them and others from committing undesirable acts. The point there of restraint and even punishment, if necessary, would be to act as an example to others, hopefully persuading them not to commit similar socially unacceptable acts. Whatever works. — Janus

As I said previously, I know that people are affected by things that happened in their past, how they were socialized, and what they've learned. I think it makes sense to keep those things in mind when holding people responsible for the consequences of their behavior. I read that one state, I think it was Texas, doesn't allow evidence of childhood neglect or abuse to be presented during murder trials, but they do allow it to be used during the penalty phase when appropriate punishment is determined.

All that being said, I think that's a whole different thing than what I typically call determinism. I don't doubt that the upcoming events can be predicted with a certain level of accuracy. We can predict weather more or less accurately up to about a week ahead. On the other hand, you will hear squawking in my house when it rains when weather reports say it is supposed to be sunny. Even the best predictions tend to be probabilistic rather than definitive.

Anyway, what I'm referring to can be found on this page starting with my post which is about the tenth one down on that page. — wonderer1

I looked at all your posts on that page and all I saw was you trying to piss off another poster. Is that what you mean by determinism, the ability to predict what will make people angry. That's a pretty weak branch to build your tree house on.

This was a short discussion of the flips and flops off idealism and realism, which is really basic, but is a starting point for anyone interested in philosophy. — introbert

For what it's worth, I thought your post was clear and easy to understand.

As for idealism vs. realism, you didn't make a distinction between matters of fact and matters of values or morals. I think many people apply different approaches to different situations, e.g. realism for facts and idealism for values.

As for flip flopping, I think it's important to know that metaphysical approaches like idealism and realism don't prevent you from having any particular understanding or think any particular thoughts about how the world works, so there's not necessarily any reason for people with different attitudes to misunderstand or disagree with each other. On the other hand, different metaphysical visions might make you more likely to be drawn to particular interpretations of fact. I have read that mathematicians tend to be idealists and physicists tend to be realists. I don't know if that's true.

I'm not against formal morality, I'm just pointing out the obvious, that morality is coercive and unrealistic. — Judaka

Isn't all social control coercive and unrealistic in that same sense? Society wants people to behave in a way that promotes the effective operation of society.

It shouldn't be that controversial to say that morality is coercive and that it's a very specific way of thinking that excludes various categories of ideas. — Judaka

Yes. I agree.

Well, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I do despise the way people view morality, and how romanticised the concept is. If my way of phrasing things pissed some people off who wanted to argue against some of the basic features of morality with me, then I was here for it. — Judaka

I think I just misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Do the people developing the AI even give two shits about that? It's hard to say - because morality is coercive and we can assume that they wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of admitting that they don't care. — Judaka

I don't it's that they don't care about creating something that may have very negative consequences. It's that there is enough uncertainty to allow them to justify acts they want to do for all the other reasons you listed. And then, if they need to to continue as they want to, they can deny the potential consequences.

Anyway, I dunno why I wrote so much when my OP says the same thing as my comment here, but now that I've written it I may as well post, hope it helps. — Judaka

I guess I didn't get it the first time around.

At the same time, I am not convinced that there is one true theory to rule them all at the bottom of creation. Which in turn makes it meaningless to ask whether the world is really deterministic or indeterministic. — SophistiCat

Agreed.

Did you happen to observe my recent demonstration, here on the forums, of how predictable people can be? — wonderer1

No. I'll take a look if you provide a link. I'm skeptical that the level of prediction you are talking about is as rigorous as what would be required to claim strict determinism. I don't doubt that events in the past have effects in the present and future. That's different.

A bathrobe and the dynamic of cultural evolution will help bring that technology into a better light. — Paine

Perhaps you meant that it is meaningless in the sense that it is of no significance to us whether or not the Universe is deterministic, and I would agree with that. — Janus

Yes. This is exactly what I mean. As I noted in my response to @wonderer1, above:

It's a simple pragmatic judgment. If a claim has no meaningful consequences in the real world, it is 1) metaphysics or 2) meaningless. As a metaphysical position, I don't see it as useful either ontologically or morally. Ontologically, I think it's misleading because it underpins the idea of causation, which I think leads people to look in the wrong places for the genesis of phenomena. Morally, I think it's misleading because it is used to justify a willingness not to hold people responsible for their actions. — T Clark

I'd be interested in hearing more about what you see as misleading. — wonderer1

It's a simple pragmatic judgment. If a claim has no meaningful consequences in the real world, it is 1) metaphysics or 2) meaningless. As a metaphysical position, I don't see it as useful either ontologically or morally. Ontologically, I think it's misleading because it underpins the idea of causation, which I think leads people to look in the wrong places for the genesis of phenomena. Morally, I think it's misleading because it is used to justify a willingness not to hold people responsible for their actions.

I don't see the idea of causation as misleading. — wonderer1

We've had a few threads here on the forum where I've made the case that the idea of causality is unnecessary and misleading. Admittedly, most people have found my arguments unconvincing.

I would think a better objection might be that, in light of the predictive issues, a hypothesis of determinism might not be falsifiable. Does that maybe get more at your objection? — wonderer1

Left out my response to this.

I intended my objection to be stronger than what you've written. 1) Except for in the simplest situations, events are not predictable even in theory 2) Therefore the idea of determinism is not unfalsifiable, it's meaningless.

I suspect that what people typically mean these days when saying the accept determinism is that they accept it as a corollary of accepting physical causal closure. So I don't see it as a meaningless idea inasmuch as it conveys such a perspective at the very least. — wonderer1

To take a step back, I see the whole issue of determinism as a metaphysical one, not subject to empirical verification or falsification. It's a matter of point of view, not fact. I don't see it as a very useful way of thinking - it's misleading.

For that matter, I think the idea of causation can be misleading except in the simplest cases.

This is usually explained by pointing to psychological adaptation, which involves changes in tool use, agricultural and hunting practices, animal husbandry, etc.

If consciousness is strictly a bodily function, we'd have to explain how it is that the body doesn't adapt, but the mind does. — frank

It's not a psychological adaptation, it's a technological one. When it's cold I put on a jacket. When it's hot I sit around in my lounge chair naked. Here's a picture:

Determinism, in its most general formulation, does not commit to computability. This, I think, is similar to the point made by ↪T Clark — SophistiCat

Yes. And my claim is that the idea of determinism is meaningless if prediction is not possible, even in theory.

Err, I don't understand what you're responding to, but there is no functional difference between those things. — Judaka

I guess I've misunderstood. You seem to be against formal morality - you say it's coercive and unrealistic. As I noted, that kind of morality is just one manifestation of social control, what you call the social contract, about which you said:

I don't condemn society's ability to apply social standards to me, they are usually practical and beneficial for everyone. and I generally support these rules. — Judaka

@180 Proof

Are you familiar with Dao De Jing: A Philosophical Translation by Roger Ames & David Hall? If so, what do you think of it? I've found it a much more insightful reading (between the lines) than any other version of Laozi's text. I've been meaning to reread it for quite some time ...
— 180 Proof

Thanks for the reference. I hadn't heard of it. Went on Amazon. Bought it in Kindle. — T Clark

I've used this version of the Tao Te Ching some since you recommended it, but just the translated verses, which I've enjoyed, not the essays included. I just read the "Philosophical Introduction." It's so odd to read the Tao Te Ching interpreted in terms of western philosophy. I think I learned more about western philosophy than I did about Taoism. That's not a bad thing. Thanks again.

I agree morality is often overapplied. A completely amoral society would still have the social contract, it would still have laws, there would still be manners, things that were culturally unacceptable, expectations on your behaviour and so on.

I don't condemn society's ability to apply social standards to me, they are usually practical and beneficial for everyone. and I generally support these rules. — Judaka

I don't see a functional difference between a social standard that says I shouldn't throw garbage in my neighbor's yard and one that says I shouldn't engage in consensual homosexual acts in private. That doesn't mean I don't realize one is reasonable and one is not.

Do I really believe that? Let me think about it.

Additionally, a similar thread has been posted on this forum, I will include it here in case the reader would like to refer to it: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6478/determinism-vs-predictability/p1 — NotAristotle

Thank you for resurrecting this old thread. One of my favorites. My position on the subject hasn't changed from that original discussion. As I noted:

It feels intuitively to me that in some, many, most? cases unraveling cause is not possible even in theory. It's not just a case of being ignorant. Part of that feeling is a conviction that sufficiently complex systems, even those that are theoretically "caused," could not be unraveled with the fastest supercomputer operating for the life of the universe. There is a point, isn't there, where "completely outside the scope of human possibility" turns into "not possible even in theory." Seems to me there is. — T Clark

If something is completely unpredictable, does it still make sense to say it is caused. Isn't cause inextricably tied up with prediction? It may be possible to model and predict a coin flip or build a machine that can flip a coin with near perfect uniformity, but how about 1,000 flips using 1,000 random coins flipped by 1,000 random people? — T Clark

My conclusion - most events in the world are completely unpredictable by the standards discussed above. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to consider the world deterministic.

If determinism were true, the printout should accurately predict Ned’s actions; however, because it could potentially not predict accurately, determinism must be false. — NotAristotle

I don't think your thought experiment proves anything. Just because you failed to predict something doesn't mean it can't be predicted. A predicting device that didn't take into account the effects of it's prediction on the future would be a pretty crappy device.

It's very difficult to talk about morality without a group as a context because the group's motivations and values are critical. For example, what's fair and reasonable within the context of a competitive soccer team will be different from a casual kids' soccer team. Whereas the competitive team might think it's fair to let the best players have the most field time and ball possession because of everyone's desire to win, it might seem fair to allow all the kids an equal chance to play in the casual kids' team. — Judaka

I think there are two moralities—there are the standards I apply to myself, and those that groups apply to themselves and others. I think only the first of these deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. The other deals with social control—standardizing behavior to make society run smoothly. Perhaps we should add a third type—laws and other formal standards of behavior. No, let's not.

I know right from wrong in a very personal way. It's easy to boil down—Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Actually, it's more than that. We are human. We are social. We (generally) like each other. When I am in a social situation, I usually know what is the right thing to do, not because of some rule, but because it is built into me by human nature backed up by learning. Behavior that shows respect and concern for other people is good. Behavior that doesn't is bad. I don't need anyone to tell me that. As I noted, these standards apply to myself, not to others.

I think the other kind of morality is the primary subject of this thread. The rules, formal or informal, of social control can be fair or unfair, kind or unkind, reasonable or unreasonable, useful or not useful, effective or ineffective. They are not really moral, although they are often dressed up in moral costumes, which can give them social and personal impact. There are always going to be standards of behavior, I guess the only issue is whether or not you agree with them. For me, the most important quality a good rule should have is fairness—it should apply to everyone equally.

I think moral conflict comes into play when one of the second, social kind of "moral" standards clashes with one of the first kind. My general attitude is to follow social rules unless there is a good reason not too. Often, I don't follow them because they are inconvenient, but that's because I am imperfect.

Do you condemn societies ability to apply social standards to you? I don't think there's anything you can do about it. It's human nature. It's sociology, anthropology.

@Jamal—I usually use hyphens for dashes but in this post—in your honor—I've used em dashes. What a pain in the ass they are.

Me too. Sadly you are still here :D — I like sushi

:chin: ….option 2. — DingoJones

Good choice.

What have you done with the real T Clark? — DingoJones

Two answers. Pick one.

Answer 1 - He is on vacation on Cape Cod, where the internet has not been installed yet. I'm just filling in.

Answer 2 - Buzz off fuzz nuts.

Banned Andrew4Handel — fdrake

Always sad to see an old-timer go.

No criticism of moderators intended.

Or if I buy a poster. The poster in itself doesn't bring value. The value comes from the idea of having a connection with the poster, that you are part of the culture it tries to depict. And the collection of these commercial objects creates the essence you present to the world as your delegation. — Levon Nurijanyan

What you are describing isn't true of me. I own a lot of things, most of which are useful or at least meant for use. Clothing, a house, a car, appliances, a computer, and on and on. I don't have strong feelings for most of these. There are a few things I really love generally because they are beautiful or have personal meaning - a rug, silverware, the orange pepper grinder my son gave me for Christmas.

I don't think I am so different from other people.

The Philosophy Forum is not a welcoming place or serious discussions of God. Really, only one question is allowable - yes or no. And only one answer is ultimately acceptable - no. If you try to take it farther than that, you will be met first by smug disrespect, followed by deleted posts and threads and finally, if you won't submit, by banning.

I wish it were not so.