it’s difficult not to consider answers such as these without asking ‘as opposed to…?’ Especially when reading it as a woman. — Possibility

I think most people would probably agree with you. When I say that being an engineer is part of my identity and that for me this means I tend to be pragmatic, focused on solving problems, process oriented, and good at math and science, that doesn't mean I consider myself as an engineer in opposition to some other category. The same is true for my attitude toward manhood.

Aggression, for instance, is traditionally considered a masculine trait - yet young women these days, freed from learned expectations of passivity as ‘feminine’, are often (not always) more openly aggressive than their mothers and grandmothers were. They no longer need to appear ‘ladylike’. — Possibility

I would not describe any of the women I've known well, except for maybe my Aunt Katsie, as "ladylike." Katsie definitely was, but she was also strong and stood up for herself. And none of them were in any way passive.

The ‘maleness’ described here appears to prioritise individual agency and attributable action - a sense of identity and ownership found in isolating one’s self from the world as the subject. Competitiveness and conflict over collaboration - my life, my decisions, my honour, my family, my desire, as opposed to others and their (dis)agreement, vulnerability, etc. — Possibility

I'm not sure what to say to this. I'll start by saying that I didn't say anything about maleness, I only described what being a man means to me. That's not the same thing. Beyond that, what you've written is close to what I wrote, but with a dark shading of uneasiness and distrust. I'd just say that that darkness is in you, not in me.

to be recognised as the subject behind every event..but this ‘maleness’ seems more about consolidating identity through attributable action than intentionality. — Possibility

No. Not to be recognized, to take responsibility. To be held accountable for the things I do and don't do.

Again, I was pointing out that it speaks to a reductionist metaphysics. What's so confusing? That I didn't reply in the same terms as if I might accept them as analytically valid? — apokrisis

Of course they're not analytically valid. They're not analytical at all.

Well, I'll say it now. But what would give it validity would be to add the cultural context shaping those "discovered" traits. — apokrisis

What you consider valid philosophy appears to be different than what I do. I'm not sure there's any way to bridge that gap.

I share much the same list. And I can trace them to the specifics of being heir to a Scots/colonial/Presbyterian/pragmatic/settler tradition and all the values held dear for good reason within that social frame. — apokrisis

I don't doubt or deny my attitudes are formed by my western European background, among other things. I'm responsible for being aware of those attitudes and deciding whether it is proper for me to act in accordance with them. You don't know me well enough to know whether or not I'm successful with that.

That is a little ridiculous as I in fact grew up in the East. — apokrisis

If you reject self-awareness as valid epistemology, your philosophy is western, even if your upbringing isn't.

I don't look inwards to then find "the real me" though. — apokrisis

That's just your snotty way of saying, again, you don't recognize introspection as valid epistemology.

Again, my response is that at best it told me more about the specifics of your cultural identity than of your gender identity. — apokrisis

I don't see how that matters. Again - I'm not responsible for my attitude or identity, I'm responsible for my behavior.

You and I have gone back and forth a couple of times and all you've really said, over and over again, is that you don't recognize the way I understand myself and my society as valid. If you think it makes sense to do that one more time, now's your chance.

And it would for instance capture more of what T Clark looks to want to claim about his personal identity. — apokrisis

We usually invite people on the basis of an email which can't be considered entirely predictive of suitability.

(And the emails get run by the whole team anyway). — Baden

I don't think anyone expects perfection. Even if the only effect is to keep Marco out, it's a success.

It was written for T Clark — Hanover

I guess I missed it.

what does this suggest about free will, the future, and truth? — Michael

I don't think it suggests anything. The text from the Wikipedia article you includes more that you didn't include:

If special relativity is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity, which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity, and hence different sets of events that are present. Each observer considers their set of present events to be a three-dimensional universe, but even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three-dimensional universes to have differing content. — Wikipedia - Rietdijk–Putnam argument

The bolded text is certainly not true in any meaningful sense. The two observers are in the same frame of reference. Any inconsistencies between their so-called "differing" three-dimensional universes are trivial - light can travel from any point on Earth to any other in much less than a second.

I was addressing how to think. A question of epistemology. This is high on the bullet point list of things that make me “a philosopher”. — apokrisis

If you had addressed your post to anyone else, I wouldn't have responded, but you didn't. So I did respond, but I was confused, I'm still confused, about why you think your post was responsive to what I wrote.

My post was based on introspection, which I consider a valid epistemological method. Perhaps you don't, but you didn't say that. You say you are a philosopher (Yes I saw the wink), but really you're a western philosopher, apparently rejecting what I find most important about philosophy - the chance to examine and understand, be more aware of, how my mind works. Not calling myself a philosopher, I'm free to do with it whatever I please. I say that approach has value. Perhaps you disagree.

Well that is silly. Even there you have those who are less of a man versus more of a man. All those who rank higher or lower than you in your atomic list of essential traits like aggression, competition, paternalism, loyalty, honour, responsibility, etc. — apokrisis

As I noted in my response to @Moliere, I did not describe what it means to be a man, I described what it means to me for me to be a man. I wasn't speaking for anyone else and I don't generally judge anyone else.

What is it that attracts you to philosophy exactly? Is it the opportunity to counter all the fancy talk with your bluff and manly plain-speaking? — apokrisis

As I wrote previously, I am attracted by the chance to become more self-aware about how my intellect works. Calling it "fancy talk with your bluff and manly plain-speaking" says something about you, nothing about me.

But I don't see how it can NOT be a political question as well. Jim Crow laws involved white people treating black people very, very badly. People who hate homosexuals tend to discriminate against them. Women could not vote (in this country) until the 20th century. How have these wrongs been ameliorated? Through political action, because what people can get away with or for what they are punished for doing is determined through political processes. Women weren't granted the vote through religious means. The Civil Rights efforts by blacks were nothing if not political. Homosexuals resisting police bar raids was entirely political. — BC

Yes, I overstated my case. All those instances are political. On the other hand, once all legal restrictions to equality are removed (and I acknowledge they have not been) the battle will not have been won. How people treat each other will remain an unresolved personal, family, social, moral and ethical question. I'll go further, those non-political factors are what lead to the political obstructions.

Wonderful reflection. Thank you for sharing. Responsibility, action, loyalty, aggression, providing protection to the vulnerable, and sexual attraction to women are perfect explications of a masculinity. — Moliere

Thank you. I don't see those as "perfect explications of a masculinity." I see them as an explication of how I experience of the fact that I am a man. I don't expect other men to experience it the way I do and I don't generally judge, or even pay much attention to, the masculinity of other men.

Thank you.

Ask Science Fiction. — unenlightened

More recent books I would recommend are the "Ancillary Sword" trilogy by Anne Leckie and the Murderbot books by Martha Wells. I wouldn't call them feminist, but they're pretty powerful.

I wrote this for you. — Hanover

Thank you....Hey...Wait a minute!

The question is, is TClark related to these earlier Clarks? — universeness

Unlikely. There are a lot of Clarks around. I did like to wear paisley shirts in the 1960s. By the way, if you want to tag me, you have to write it @t clark, with a space between the T and the C. It doesn't show up as a drop down choice, but it will work.

radges like Clarky — Jamal

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Ask a reductionist question and you get a reductionist answer. Masculinity gets defined as being the kind of matter which possess a certain collection of properties or essences. — apokrisis

I found myself laughing at your post. I value your opinions and ideas when it comes to science, but in this particular situation, your opinion doesn't mean anything. I was describing my own personal experience of being a man - what being a man means to me. Maybe that doesn't fit in with what you think I ought to think and feel, but that's your issue, not mine.

As a holist, I would ask what does masculinity seek to oppose itself to? What does it dichotomously "other"...Of course, that would be the feminine. — apokrisis

For me, it's not. I'm not a man in opposition to anything. A man is what I am. I can't say I treat women exactly the way I treat men, but I apply the same standards - fairness, friendliness, respect. I admit I feel more protective of women in general than I do of men. I can sometimes be a pretty intimidating person for people who don't know me. I'm high energy and aggressive verbally. Women tend to be more intimidated by me than men do, so I have to be more careful.

At the same time, women tend to like me and trust me once they know me better. I treat them with respect they can sense is sincere. I'm pretty transparent. People can see I'm trustworthy and not a threat.

How men treat women, how people treat other people, is not a political question, no matter how much political ideologues try to make it one.

There are certain characteristics I have that I am confident about - that are part of how I think about myself, my identity. These include that I am my three children's father, I am intelligent, I write well, I am a Clark, I think like an engineer, I see the world in ways that not many other people do, I am loyal, and I am a man. My maleness manifests as intellectual aggressiveness; an ability to deal with conflict in an honorable way; competitiveness; a strong drive to make and take responsibility for decisions that affect my life sometimes without waiting for other's agreement; a desire to protect my family, friends, and people who are more vulnerable than I am; and a desire for emotional and sexual intimacy with women. That's what being a man means to me.

Oh yes, and I have a penis.

I'm comfortably cis, but if I shudder at the thought of going into a public mens' room, I'm sure a lot of people who were born with what looked like a tiny penis and female sensibilities would, too. — Vera Mont

Yay. A new argument. It's not right to send trans women, any woman, into men's bathrooms because men are disgusting.

Here's a scientific take. — wonderer1

I'll take a look. Thanks.

the main argument for which is the transphobic, sexist, and patriarchal (thank you, unenlightened) lie that trans women are a threat to cis women in women's bathrooms, — Baden

Just because it's the only argument you're willing to consider doesn't mean it's the only argument or the main one.

How do you propose that we can make "fairness" a principle in any competitive sport, which by its very nature is immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

As you note, competition is not immoral. It has benefits and I think it's a fundamental part of human nature. It doesn't have to be taught. Little kids playing non-competitive soccer argue fiercely over who won.

What is rigid about it? Asking for evidence of a threat? Defining transphobia the way I have? You're putting forward a list of criticisms without specifying what you're talking about or engaging substantively. I am able to defend my position, so if you could please quote where my reasoning is faulty in your view, — Baden

The post below describes the difference between your position and mine. As I've said in several posts, forcing acceptance of transgender people's demands down the throats of the other 99.5% of us is not an effective way of keeping trans people safe.

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. — T Clark

I know a few black people who had never heard of the holiday until it became national. Largely celebrated in Texas. — TiredThinker

By the time President Biden declared Juneteenth a federal holiday, almost all states had voted independently to commemorate Juneteenth as a day of observance. — USA Today

Joe Hill's birthday — BC

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you or me.

What I said is compatible with helping them become valued member of our communities. — Baden

I not sure that's true, but even if it is, I don't think your approach will be effective.

nuanced and charitable manner. — Baden

I would not characterize you position, as expressed here, as nuanced and charitable. I see it as rigid and uncompromising and I think approaching the problem that way makes things worse.

Don't try to do social engineering with your political views. That's just going to create tension that makes the topic harder to talk about. — frank

I think this is the heart of the matter. People don't seem to want to solve the problem, they want to change society. The way to change society is to solve all the problems, one by one, until it doesn't matter anymore.

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.